Will Beg for Food and Web Site

Reader John Bradford directs our attention to the spectacle of "bumvertising" in the Pacific Northwest:

After scrambling to create an Internet development business and engineer his own Web site for poker fans, [Ben] Rogovy had lots of ideas but little cash with which to advertise them. Then, while staring at a panhandler's cardboard sign, the light bulb clicked on.

"So much traffic goes by these sign holders, I thought, 'Wouldn't it be cool if they could advertise themselves and me at the same time?' " he said.

Rogovy gives the bums some food and water and $1 to $5 depending on "each panhandler's relative value" to advertise his site, PokerFaceBook.

Whole Seattle Post-Intelligencer article here.

Let the debate begin: Is this free markets gone wild? Or is it true that if a man can't advertise on another man, he's got no rights at all?

Comments

[mediageek]

It certainly seems more ethical than "Bumfights."

[NoStar]

Promoting a Poker site with a homeless guy in ragged clothes seems counter-productive to me, but I do have to give kudos for the truth in advertising.

[NoStar]

Promoting a Poker site with a homeless guy in ragged clothes seems counter-productive to me, but I do have to give kudos for the truth in advertising.

[Timothy]

Eh, if the bums do it willingly, who am I to complain? And if it stops them from hassling as many employed pedestrians, all the better.

[Sarnath]

Seems no different than paying someone to dress in a giant foam suit and stand by a busy road to advertise a product.

[ed]

I think he'd get more hits if he dressed them up as clowns.
Just a suggestion.

[sage]

What I think would be funny is if the guys has a sign that says "Will work for food," and under that is an ad for monster.com.

[Phil]

Who the heck is going to visit a website they see printed on a panhandler's sign?

[Brian]

The difference: there's a minimum wage requirement involved in paying a guy in a giant foam suit. Paying bums $1 to $5 skirts this -- illegally? Unethically?

[Brad]

I assume the bums are independent contractors and aren't subject to minimum wage laws.

[Sarnath]

The difference: there's a minimum wage requirement involved in paying a guy in a giant foam suit. Paying bums $1 to $5 skirts this -- illegally? Unethically?

This probably runs afoul of minimum wage laws, but ethically it seems fine--looks like the market in action. Clearly, the guy should just claim the bums fall into the category of waiters: he can pay less than minimum wage because they make tips.

[Brad]

And in my stream of consciousness writing, I didn't even realize that I used the term "bum" without noting that I still had the earlier posts about "bumfights" in my head.

[gaius marius]

what i would say is so obvious that i'll refrain.

[Bokonon]

I love you, gaius.

[JMoore]

This sounds like one recycling program which could actually be worthwhile.

[Jesse Walker]

Probably not a wise business decision, given that most people try to avert their eyes from panhandlers.

[Eric the .5b]

Seems no different than paying someone to dress in a giant foam suit and stand by a busy road to advertise a product.

Sounds far more humane, to me. I shudder driving by someone in one of those suits under an August Texas sun...

[thoreau]

This seems like ripe material for an episode of Reno 911.

[ralphus]

I work in advertising and one of my most humbling moments (and trust me in this business there are many) was when I saw a homeless guy using the back of piece of point of sale that had gone through months of pointless client revisions as his "please help, god bless" sign.

As far as intentionally using the homeless to advertise why not. We can file it under non-traditional media.

I think I remember a story of a pizza joint in Colorado or somewhere doing the same thing. But that should come as no surprise. I'm always trying to pass off old ideas as fresh new concepts.

[spacemarmot]

Public advertising is assault. It's assault when a panhandler does it, and it's assault when a business does it. The bum is not exploited and his rights are not violated here. Mine are.

[ralphus]

spacemarmot,

Please elaborate. I had no idea I was guilty of assault.

[Sarnath]

Sounds far more humane, to me. I shudder driving by someone in one of those suits under an August Texas sun...

That was my second response. I can't imagine how desperate someone must be to wear a giant foam rubber cellphone suit in the Phoenix sun.

[spacemarmot]

My attention has significant value. My employer compensates me well for lending it that attention.

If I read an advertisement on a web page or on television, then this is by my choice, an agreement between myself and the publisher that I will compensate the publisher for its content by consuming its advertising. I can choose not to read the publication if I wish to avoid the advertisement.

But in a public space, I have entered no such agreement with the advertiser. I have no means to extract compensation from it. I am forced to either consume the message or expend mental energy to ignore it. The advertiser is taking something from me without compensation. This is coercion and a violation of my rights.

[BrianTerrel]

spacemarmot

Have you ever considered...just not looking?

[spacemarmot]

Of course, and that's exactly what I do. But, ignoring an advertisement is not passive. It is an active process, requiring attention and energy. My attention has considerable value, who's going to pay for it?

[sage]

spacetroll,

"Value" is subjective; some might say your attention has the "value" of a shit in the dirt.

[ralphus]

spacemarmot,

Does you're employer compensate you for the attention you lend to posting cranky rants?

I seem to remember an Amendment that protects a business' right to expression but I'm drawing a blank on one that protects you're right not to be annoyed. And technically public advertising appears on private property. For example a billboard company owns the billboard and the property it is on. We pay to use the space.

But I'm curious. Are you telling me that you have never once found public advertising useful? You've never been driving down an unfamiliar stretch of highway, realize you're low on gas and followed a sign that says Chevron next exit?

[Chuck]

For me, ignoring a good-looking woman in a short dress is an active process, requiring attention and energy. Should I be charging them all, now?

[R C Dean]

I dunno about you, Chuck, but for me to charge a good looking woman in a short dress would be a real 180.

[Chuck]

Me too...but according to spaceferret, we've been doing it all wrong. I just want to get this right, because I work at a university, and am surrounded by such distractions all day long. If I'm missing out on a gold mine here, I need to know, dammit!

[spacemarmot]

First, I am correct in understanding that this is a libertarian publication, right?

Second, since the name of the publication is "Reason," one would like to believe that *reason* would be the preferred method of discussion in this forum.

Third, this is not a troll. I am arguing that the libertarian perspective on the article at hand is that the private property rights of a large number of individuals are violated by the usage of public property to deliver a commercial message.

While a business does have a right to express itself on private property, it does not have an *unlimited* right to project into another's private property, or public property. I may have a right to play my stereo at 60dB in my home, but I do not have a right to play it at 100dB because this is an incursion upon the rights of my neighbors. A business has a right to operate a neon sign in its storefront. It does not typically have the right to operate it at 100,000 Watts. Why? Because this violates somebody else's property rights.

We are discussing the use of public space to broadcast a commercial message, either the message of the panhandler, or the message of the agency that hires the panhandler for advertising, though the same problem applies to other types of public displays.

There is a strain of "libertarians of convenience" that interprets the philosophy as the unlimited right of commercial interests to encroach upon the rights of the public, but a truly libertarian society would expect compensation for any transgression of private property.

There is a reason that panhandling is illegal, and that reason is perfectly defensible from a libertarian perspective.

Let me ask a question: is attention private property?

[The Mad Scientist]

I hope spacemarmot is right. I was leaving the grocery store this afternoon and drove past a bum holding up the usual homeless-vet-crippled-oppressed-by-the-man sign who informed me that I'm a "rich asshole" when I neglected to pay him for being a bum. I'd love to go back and charge that guy for having to read his sign.

[Captain Awesome]

Spacemarmot- n. the kind of libertarian who believes your right to swing your fists ends anywhere within view, of anybody, including tv, and the internet, and don't even try putting that campaign sign on your lawn.

[ralphus]

spacemarmot,

Answer my gas station question. Has "public" advertising ever been of benefit to you? If so, are you only opposed to public advertising that doesn't interest you?

As far as broadcasting my message at 100,000 Watts, that's what local ordinances determined by my elected officials are for.

"Is attention private property?"

No. It's a mental state.

But if we assume for the sake of argument that it is indeed private property then, as a libertarian, I can use it as I see fit. Therefore I can choose where I focus my attention. So I can choose not to pay attention to advertising and check out the pretty girl in the short skirt instead.

And if you think libertarians are the only ones that frequent this site you've obviously never met joe.

[spacemarmot]

ralphus,

In the gas station example, there is a public good that is related to the function of the road. People who use the road are likely to be interested in the availability of a gas station, and few are likely to be offended by the presence of such advertising. An advertisement for a business that has nothing to do with the road would be offensive to many, and an abuse of public property.

"Trespassing" is a physical state. "Property" is a physical state. What is the physical state of "intellectual property"? Property applies to anything that can be uniquely identified and assigned a value.

Attention is not entirely under conscious control. If you are involved in advertising, then I would like to believe that you already understand this. If attention is not private property, does that mean I have the right to follow you down the street blowing an air horn at you? Would you not feel that your rights were violated if I did this?

In the 100,000 W sign example, elected officials make the ordinance because it is in the public interest to prohibit a nuisance. This is also why panhandling should be (and usually is) banned, and why hiring panhandlers to advertise should also be banned, because a large portion of the public would agree that they are a nuisance, and there is little public good served by their presence.

[ralphus]

spacemarmot,

But what if some of the people on that road are interested in finding a restaurant for dinner, a casino to gamble at, a country and western radio station to listen to, a new type of chip they can buy at their next snack stop or a specific gas station because it's the only one their card is good at? Just because the message doesn't apply to you doesn't mean that it's not serving someone. And if you gotta buy gas why can't a station try to influence you to buy from them instead of a competitor?

As far as attention not being under conscious control, if I've learned anything in this business it's that the consumer quite easily ignores 99.9% of what we do. If everyone paid attention to everything we say I wouldn't get paid to find creative new ways to say it.

I'm not arguing with you about the role of elected officials to determine what constitutes a nuisance or to set zoning ordinances regarding the size of signs and what not. We have to work with in local restrictions.

I'll even agree with you to a point on the attention is property argument. Since I'm paid to attract it, it must have value. Still, I argue that since it's your attention you can choose how to use it.

I don't even know where to begin with your horn honking straw man.

[spacemarmot]

If attention has value, and you ask me for it, then I expect to be compensated when I give it to you. This is the definition of a free and fair market.

The advertising on this web page is compensated for by the content and service of this web page. How do I extract compensation from the advertiser that waves a sign in front of me on the sidewalk? This is all I wanted to know.

[spacemarmot]

If attention has value, and you ask me for it, then I expect to be compensated when I give it to you. This is the definition of a free and fair market.

The advertising on this web page is compensated for by the content and service of this web page. How do I extract compensation from the advertiser that waves a sign in front of me on the sidewalk? This is all I wanted to know.

[jdog]

spacemarmot,

I'm not completely convinced, but you make good points.

If Microsoft or General Motors took on the practice of hiring bums to stand on public property to advertize their products the rest of the public would be outraged. That would be a bad PR tactic, but perfectly legitimate by the same logic that allows a small entrepenuer to do the same.

[speedwell]

I'd read all of spacemarmot's arguments... but I'd have to charge him for it.

[jdog]

"I'd read all of spacemarmot's arguments... but I'd have to charge him for it."

I'll give you a dollar if you post that message on a sign that you hold up on the 134W freeway ramp in Pasadena, CA tomorrow morning at about 06:45.

[ralphus]

spacemarmot,

Depends on how you define value. It's a dandy of a semantic argument.

Opinions have value as well. Here we are giving ours away for free. The exchange here is one of ideas and the pay off is a stimulating debate. Of coure you may think I'm a moron and that my opinions are not worth the attention you have to pay to respond. So you can always choose to ignore me and move on with life.

As an advertiser, I try to give a bit of entertainment and a smile in exchange for your attention and the hope that the next time you're thirsty you'll purchase my client's soda. As jdog pointed out, if I use distasteful means or shout at you too loud I'll probably achieve the opposite of my desired effect. In which case the ad will fail and my client will get bitch slapped by the proverbial invisible hand.

I say you can choose to ignore things. You say that you can't help but to pay attention. However, I would ask you to describe to me three advertisements that intruded upon you in public spaces today. If they were such drains on your attention then surely you must remeber the messages that some hack like me forced into your brain.

[spacemarmot]

ralphus

I certainly don't think you are a moron, since you made the effort to actually reason with me.

I live in the city. Which means that I have to endure panhandlers, pollsters, activists, a-boards, and other public nuisances on a daily basis. Some parts of the city seem to have less tolerance for these things, and these places are undeniably more pleasant environments to live and do business in.

I'm not universally condemning advertising, only demanding fair compensation for my attention. A bit of entertainment and a smile certainly contributes towards that, but I'd have to be rolling in the street laughing to compensate for some smelly derelict in my face begging for change and promoting carbonated sugar water.

[raymond]

When I read 'the spectacle of "bumvertising" in the Pacific Northwest', this is the kind of thing which immediately came to mind.

That'll be $6.99, please.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Spacemarmot, considering the thoughts that have escaped your brain, I'd say fair compensation for your attention is probably something like a dollar a century. Don't spend it all in one place, hear?

[ralphus]

raymond,

The media people call that a double spread.

spacemarmot,

Didn't think you were calling me a moron. I was just pointing out that if you thought I was you could have chosen to ignore me. Just like advertising. Which doesn't seem to be a real problem for you since you can't describe any ads that captured your attention. Of course that could be because none of those ads were created by an ad ninja like me.

You know it just occurred to me that the best way to use bum media would be for PSAs. A piss-stained crackhead holding up a sign that says, "Don't do drugs" would be much more effective than those retarded "I got high and drowned my sister" TV spots.

Think I'll pitch that to the ONDCP. Get my agency some gubment cheddar. That would be sweet. With the money they dish out I could buy lots of coke.

[sage]

Spacemarmot,

Sorry for calling you a troll, but I'd say your attention (or anyone's) is something that is freely given. No one is forcing your eyeballs to focus on the sign in question. In fact, if you use something like the movies as an example, you are actually paying someone else to give your attention to them for two hours.

[Eric the .5b]

If attention has value, and you ask me for it, then I expect to be compensated when I give it to you. This is the definition of a free and fair market.

If I ask for your attention, and you say "Sure, $5" and I agree, then that would be reasonable. Otherwise, no.

[speedwell]

Penny for your thoughts. 😉

[gambling]

You can also check some information dedicated to gambling .

[bonus]

Please visit some relevant pages on bonus .

[most effective diet pills onl]

Please take a look at some relevant information dedicated to review ...