Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Coming War on Spinners
The L.A. Times has a fun article on human directionals and the art of attracting attention on city streets. As advertisers turn to teams of sign-twirlers, some cities are moving to protect citizens from the grave danger of manic "spinners." (Petite women of the world: You're safe. For now.)
Local spinners have cooked up hundreds of moves. There's the Helicopter, in which a spinner does a backbend on one hand while spinning a sign above his head. In the Blender, a spinner twirls the sign behind his back. Spanking the Horse gets the most attention. The spinner puts the sign between his legs, slaps his own behind and giddy-ups.
Thanks to growing demand, the business has turned cutthroat. There's a frenzy of talent poaching. Spinners battle one another for plum assignments and the promise of wage hikes. Some of the more prominent compete for bragging rights by posting videos on YouTube and Google Video, complete with trash talking...
The outdoor advertising industry still does not recognize sign spinning as a bona fide way of reaching consumers, much less an art form. It regards spinning as a form of guerrilla marketing that commercializes public space. Some municipalities are even beginning to make sign spinners into outlaws. Riverside, Poway and El Cajon are among the cities that recently banned the practice.
"They can distract people and cause accidents," said Jim Griffin, director of community development in El Cajon. Some sidewalk sign holders try to spin when no one is looking, so Griffin hired weekend staff to catch and ticket them.
Lichtenberg|5.1.07 @ 10:40AM|#
This may sound very un-libertarian of me, but I can actually understand the desire to ban them from places where people drive. I think their whole raison d'etre is to distract drivers from what they should be doing (you know: watching the road and other cars).
Russ 2000|5.1.07 @ 10:40AM|#
If you can't Spank The Monkey in public, it's only right that you can't Spank The Horse.
|5.1.07 @ 10:42AM|#
Huh?
I'm now officially old and can no longer keep up.
Now get off my lawn and take your sandwich board with you.
Freak.
Chris Monnier|5.1.07 @ 10:43AM|#
Isn't this a violation of Free Speech? Why can't I say or do whatever I want on a sidewalk? It's not my fault if drivers don't have the self control and responsibility to watch the road and drive well...
|5.1.07 @ 10:43AM|#
Leave it to L.A. to create a new kind of performance art out of
something as mundane as holding a sign by the side of the
road.
None of the human directionals around here show that level of
creativity.
|5.1.07 @ 10:48AM|#
Lichtenberg | May 1, 2007, 10:40am | #
This may sound very un-libertarian of me, but I can actually
understand the desire to ban them from places where people drive. I
think their whole raison d'etre is to distract drivers from
what they should be doing (you know: watching the road and
other cars).
People actually watch the road and other cars when they drive? Wow,
that's news. Given all of the amenities that vehicles offer these
days, drivers will be distracted no matter what the cause. This is
yet another attempt to blame others for the stupidity of the
general public...ala the hot coffee lawsuits.
|5.1.07 @ 10:48AM|#
Well, back when I invented "The Twirl" in my days of umbrella sales on the streets of New York it was a more refined business. Now these kids today think they can just Spank the Horse and feel like they reinvented the wheel. Amateurs.
|5.1.07 @ 10:50AM|#
Maybe the orange sellers by the freeway should start doing The Splatter. That's when you chuck an orange at a car to get their attention and, hopefully, sell a shitload of oranges.
SPD|5.1.07 @ 10:52AM|#
Cool video
here. Naturally, the ads are for Adult Swim. (Is there no end
to their hipness?)
Corporate-sponsored performance art? This has "Brian Doherty"
written all over it.
Lichtenberg|5.1.07 @ 10:55AM|#
Yeah, I figured I'd lose whatever libertarian cred I may have
had by posting that. Oh well.
The distinction I make, and it may be a specious one, is that many
things may distract a driver, but this activity seems, on its face,
to be intentionally designed to distract them.
Chris Monnier|5.1.07 @ 10:55AM|#
> Naturally, the ads are for Adult Swim...
The same pranksters behind the Boston bomb scare?? Cartoon Network
should be added to the No-fly List!!
Guy Montag|5.1.07 @ 10:56AM|#
Well, back when I invented "The Twirl" in my days of
umbrella sales on the streets of New York it was a more refined
business. Now these kids today think they can just Spank the Horse
and feel like they reinvented the wheel. Amateurs.
Everybody knows that Jerry invented that move! Then he sold out for
big funny.
shecky|5.1.07 @ 10:58AM|#
Over the last 15 or so years, I've seen LA's sidewalk sign
spinners evolve from homeless human signposts to youthful hipsters
with near break dancer moves.
Personally, I've never found them any more distracting than
billboards or blinky light displays.
Lichtenberg|5.1.07 @ 10:59AM|#
Next come the "slippery slope" arguments which will undoubtedly
point out that billboards are designed to distract. And it's valid,
I'll admit.
Like I said, I can understand the desire to limit this form of
expression. I don't know that I would ban it outright, but I would
ask the companies which use it to be circumspect and
responsible.
|5.1.07 @ 11:01AM|#
War on Spinners? Ha! Don't make me laugh!
The Los Angeles City Council is no match for the Boston Red Sox'
(single A, summer league, mumble mumble) affiliate in Lowell,
Massachusetts!
Our rehabbing relief pitchers will crush your pothole-filling
panderers!
|5.1.07 @ 11:03AM|#
Lichtenberg | May 1, 2007, 10:55am | #
Yeah, I figured I'd lose whatever libertarian cred I may have had
by posting that. Oh well.
The distinction I make, and it may be a specious one, is that many
things may distract a driver, but this activity seems, on its face,
to be intentionally designed to distract them.
I don't disagree with you that they are intending to distract
drivers. I just don't agree with the ban that they're pushing.
Guy Montag|5.1.07 @ 11:03AM|#
Next come the "slippery slope" arguments which will
undoubtedly point out that billboards are designed to distract. And
it's valid, I'll admit.
Actually, that would be a retro move. See Lady Bird Johnson's
"advertiser preservation act" or similar wording, where federal law
forced billboards to be a certain distance from interstate
highways, but the billboard owners were given reperations for
having to relocate/remove the billboards.
Chris Monnier|5.1.07 @ 11:05AM|#
> The distinction I make, and it may be a specious one,
is that many things may distract a driver, but this activity seems,
on its face, to be intentionally designed to distract
them.
The argument could be made that the spinners are intentionally
distracting pedestrians, something that doesn't pose the same type
of intuitive safety risk that distracting (or at least attempting
to distract) drivers does.
ed|5.1.07 @ 11:11AM|#
The sign-holders here in south Florida don't spin them. In fact they barely move. It's hot. They mostly stand there in the sun and look pathetic and dream of their own suicides.
Lichtenberg|5.1.07 @ 11:15AM|#
joe
You lost me, possibly due to my complete ignorance of just about
everything in Massachusetts.
|5.1.07 @ 11:17AM|#
ed,
I think they employ a "Weekend at Bernie's" type system. When they
pass out from heat exhaustion, they're discretely propped up by
well placed 2x4s attached to their backs.
Chris Monnier|5.1.07 @ 11:18AM|#
> This is simply the opening wedge for the full-scale
attack on juggling.
Maybe the Commerce Clause will be invoked to legitimize the
ban...after all, street performances may distract drivers, which
affects interstate commerce, and as such the government has the
authority to regulate it.
shecky|5.1.07 @ 11:19AM|#
Thinking back, the only thing that consistently distracts my
driving here in LA is the view of a buxom woman walking down the
street.
Fortunately, buxom female sign spinners seem a rarity.
|5.1.07 @ 11:20AM|#
I thought the money line was this:
The company records spinners' movements and sends them in
batches to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. "We have to take
our intellectual property pretty seriously,"
Okay, the way people twirl signs around is now intellectual
property? We've gone mad!
SPD|5.1.07 @ 11:22AM|#
If the War on Spinners continues, what's next? The War on
O'Jays? The War on Harold Melvin and the Blue Notes?
Head for the hills, Patti LaBelle! Philly soul is not safe!
Lichtenberg|5.1.07 @ 11:22AM|#
How's this for a more sane course of action?
If I were the mayor, I would approach the companies who employ this
sort of advertising and say "Look, guys, we don't have any clinical
studies yet, but intuition alone tells me that if you do this near
where people drive, it could be a really big distraction which
could cause accidents, so could you please limit this to places
where only pedestrians will see it? Now, I wo't force you to so
limit yourselves, but if there ever is an accident which can be
linked to these displays, I will be holding a press
conference."
Chris Monnier|5.1.07 @ 11:30AM|#
> If I were the mayor...
This sounds reasonable, but I don't think it would change the
behavior of the spinners most likely to cause distractions.
I still think the onus to drive responsibly is on each driver.
Obviously, it's a little hard to be so objective about it because
if a driver messes up there's a good chance it won't be just the
driver that gets hurt. Nevertheless, I really would not want to
limit speech.
Maybe a pragmatic solution would be to limit the
advertising/performing to spaces greater than 10 feet (or whatever)
from the curb. The further from the road, the less likely a driver
is to accidentally see something and then get distracted; perhaps
their eyes will wander while at a red light, but while actively
driving most people's focus is on the road and the area
around it.
SPD|5.1.07 @ 11:31AM|#
The thing is that unless the spinners are running out into traffic and causing accidents, or holding their signs in front of traffic lights, they can't be blamed for a driver's lack of concentration so long as they stay on the sidewalk and do their thing.
|5.1.07 @ 11:36AM|#
Thanks for the aside about pettite women, Kerry. I missed that the first time I read through the post. Very enjoyable.
Lichtenberg|5.1.07 @ 11:36AM|#
SPD
I assure you they WILL be blamed when my client, whose husband died
in a traffic accident because the driver of the other car was
distracted by spinners, sues the company using such advertising for
$100 million.
|5.1.07 @ 11:37AM|#
"If I were the mayor..."
How about instead of fantasizing the paternal mayor role, we
fantasize the consumer role and warn the companies that they may be
risking ill will by distracting us?
That's IFF you are concerned about this. Which I really don't
understand.
thoreau|5.1.07 @ 11:55AM|#
This is simply the opening wedge for the full-scale attack
on juggling.
They'll take my machetes from my cold, dead hands!
|5.1.07 @ 12:11PM|#
As long as their messages on the signs don't disturb my delicate sensibilities. If so, they should be arrested for disturbing the peace like that high school student in IL. Can't have people thinking and expressing thoughts we don't like, now can we?
|5.1.07 @ 1:34PM|#
The driving distraction thing is completely bogus. The most near-accidents I've caused were from driving around looking at *stationary* real estate signs, and trying to pull over on a dime (or flip a U turn) so my wife could hop out and grab a flyer. Sign spinners are no more distracting than the 10 billion other things going on in your peripheral vision on a busy urban street.
|5.1.07 @ 2:44PM|#
Good to know that the cities of Riverside, Poway and El Cajon
have eliminated all violent crime, thus freeing their public
officials to finally crack down on the sign twirlers.
BTW, a developer who hires sign twirlers is pretty much advertising
to the world: "There's no way I can sell my shitty, overpriced
condos through legitimate advertising methods. Therefore, I appeal
to you, Mr./Ms. Motorist, to come help bail me out from my
impending bankruptcy."
Mike Laursen|5.1.07 @ 3:37PM|#
so could you please limit this to places where only
pedestrians will see it?
Nobody walks in L.A.
Rhywun|5.1.07 @ 4:45PM|#
This is simply the opening wedge for the full-scale attack
on juggling.
I have no problem with that. Especially if they're clowns.
And I am eternally grateful that this fad hasn't caught on in NYC.
We wouldn't need a law to ban them; the people would take matters
into their own hand and take care of it themselves, I should
think.
Ken Hagler|5.1.07 @ 5:02PM|#
"I assure you they WILL be blamed when my client, whose husband
died in a traffic accident because the driver of the other car was
distracted by spinners, sues the company using such advertising for
$100 million."
And then they'll be blamed for the sole reason that the company
using such advertising _has_ $100 million while the driver who was
actually responsible probably doesn't have a total worth high
enough to attract a lawyer's interest.
Ken Hagler|5.1.07 @ 5:04PM|#
I think the real story behind this is here:
"The outdoor advertising industry still does not recognize sign
spinning as a bona fide way of reaching consumers, much less an art
form. It regards spinning as a form of guerrilla marketing that
commercializes public space."
In other words, these guys are so successful that they're starting
to encroach on the profits of existing billboard companies, who are
now using their bought and paid for politicians to end the threat
of competition.
thoreau|5.1.07 @ 6:10PM|#
Nobody walks in L.A.
True story: Almost exactly a year ago I was visiting LA. I went to
see some friends, and parked my rental car. Then I realized that I
had the wrong address, and was a block away. So I got back in my
car to drive one more block...and then I realized "Why am I driving
one measly block?"
Then the song "Nobody Walks in LA" came on the radio, and I
understood.
GILMORE|5.1.07 @ 6:59PM|#
Legate Damar | May 1, 2007, 11:36am | #
Thanks for the aside about pettite women, Kerry. I missed that the
first time I read through the post. Very enjoyable.
Har
Me, I was like, "holy shit, chicks know dudes call petite women
that??" (or, cough, those vulgarish type of men...)
Maybe i'm just naive. Naive, and my last 3 girlfriends were under
5'2.
Forgive me father
|5.1.07 @ 7:36PM|#
I have to confess I have no idea what the heck the reference to petite women is about.
|5.1.07 @ 7:55PM|#
Stevo,
I confess I didn't know either, but when in doubt, look it up on
Wikipedia.
|5.1.07 @ 9:08PM|#
GILMORE wrote:
my last 3 girlfriends were under 5'2.
That averages out to less than 21" . . .
|5.1.07 @ 11:07PM|#
"Some municipalities are even beginning to make sign spinners
into outlaws."
You mean they're denied access to the courts, and anyone can demand
their surrender and then shoot them if they refuse?
GILMORE|5.2.07 @ 1:48AM|#
J Golden Rockwell | May 1, 2007, 9:08pm | #
GILMORE wrote:
my last 3 girlfriends were under 5'2.
That averages out to less than 21" . . .
Which is weird! cause, like, thats how long my...uh... feet
are.
sign spinners|10.2.09 @ 3:45PM|#
"It regards spinning as a form of guerrilla marketing" That makes it sound like it is somehow a lesser form of advertising, guerrilla marketing *is* a valid form of advertising, nothing wrong it. Legislation makes the assumption that sign spinners are an eye-sore, like the 200 foot long billboard is any better.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245