March 27, 2006
Verizon, This Doesn't Look Like Progress

DCist is a website about Washington, D.C. More
Editor: Sommer Mathis Publisher: Gothamist
About | Advertising | Archive | Contact | Mobile | Photos | Staff | Subscribe
Most Recommended:
FOX 5 Reporter Snags McCain Campaign Blackberry Loaded with Info (21)
Metro Says Google Transit Could Happen if it Made Them Money (15)
Flickr Has Success With Public Archives (10)
MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski Mugged in D.C. (8)
Photo of the Day: December 17, 2008 (8)
Most Commented:
What Do You Think Ginkgo Fruit Smells Like? (66)
Metro Tests New Wool Seat Covers (63)
D.C. to New York City in Two Hours? (54)
Council Amends Gun Laws, Requires Training (53)
Water Main Break Forces Emergency Rescue in Bethesda (48)
Latest tip:
There is a suspicious package being investigated near 12th and D St SW, in front of the new Homel [more]
Latest link:
[from qshio] Here Comes Santa Claus Here Comes Santa Claus Here Comes… « Near Earth Object
Latest Photo:
ColHeightsChic on Go Home Already: Want A Cookie? Edition
KittyLiteral on Popcorn & Candy: Rearview Mirror Edition
heyitsgarrett on Morning Roundup: It's Boxing Day Edition
tbuchanan on Overheard in D.C.: The Class of 2008
LiliMoon on Bus Parking Zones Outlined For Inauguration
12/27 West Side Story
12/27 Washington Ballet Presents the Nutcracker
12/27 Above the Ashes
12/27 ZooLights
12/27 DC Benny
12/27 Robin Thicke
12/27 Chanukah Feast in Concert
12/27 Dance Party
12/27 The After Christmas, New Year's Eve Warm-up Holiday Party
12/27 The Dance Party/ New Rock Church of Fire/ Crash Boom Bang @ 930 Club

They've got them all over the place. Just started noticing them today. I think I saw the first on 19th Street and then another on Connecticut in Woodley Park.
So not cool. Unless the paid DC to do this (which, even then it's a bit much) I'd have to say Verizon is totally out of line.
Verizon? Being jackasses? Perish the thought. Can we put them in a cell next to Borf?
When I first saw the headline I thought it would be a post about someone using sidewalk art to protest Verizon's lousy service. As it is I don't like to receive their heavy yellow pages. I say - Long Live MCI Center!
Good question re: whether they paid D.C. to do this. If they didn't, D.C. needs to bitch slap them with a fine for each one. If they did pay, then even though it's lame corporate graffiti, I'm reluctantly okay with it. Without a commuter tax, you gotta pay the bills somehow....
I counted at least four of these on the eastern side of Connecticut between Farragut West (Eye Street) and Mass Ave, this morning.
Personally, I'd like to see the Verizon execs out there cleaning these off the sidewalks with their tongues.
I wondered what Marie Johns was doing out on Connecticut Avenue this morning at 3am with a can of orange Krylon.
Couldn't they even bother to make the graffiti vaguely interesting? I saw two this morning near the north entrance to the Dupont Metro. And unlike dclounger, I don't think it's okay if they're paying for it. Trashing our living space with more and more advertising is not without cost.
In any case, I believe some companies have made graffiti ads in the past illegally and simply looked on the fines (if the fines are ever levied) as an advertising cost. I'd prefer to see some corporate executives in jail with Borf and then out on the sidewalk on their knees scrubbing off their vandalism.
I would encourage those of you who have spotted this graffiti to report it to the Department of Public Works, via the Citywide Call Center at 727-1000.
I agree w/ Rob (H?) about the call center suggestion. DC needs to put a lid on this before the meme of the advertising method spreads.
Walking home from work tonight Verizon was projecting the same advertisement above onto the side of buildings downtown (H St. and 10th-ish). I'm don't think this kind of guerilla marketing works in DC as well as it would other places...
I want to be bothered by this, but I'm really not. It will all wash away with the next rainfall. And I think projected ads on buildings are actually kinda cool. Just another part part of urban scenery.
Let's focus on REAL problems in the city...
i actually didn't have all that much of a problem with Borf or his copycats. didn't totally buy the various alleged idealogical (including allegedly anti-idealogical) motivations or inspirations of it, but wasn't all that bothered.
verizon stenciling bothers me.
that said: they caught and punished borf.
verizon is even more brazen.
i am bothered by it and i think, at minimum, the principles of universality and of proportionality should apply here.
that is, the proprotionality of the punishment to the offender's situation and likelihood to *feel* it.
yeah, i'd say putting the CEO of verizon in a cell like Borf almost fits.
PUNISH corporate crime.
this is small potatoes, sure, but do this much then... do the small stuff.
cause they sure as fuck don't punish other corporate crime.
this is an open and shut case.
Personally, I would rather see Borf around than this. At least Borf was art and got people talking about what Borf was and how "they" can be stopped. In a way, corporate graffitti is the anti-Borf. I get bombarded with popup ads, commercials, billboards, and telemarketers contantly - I don't need it on the sidewalks and public spaces that I pay for. IF Verizon is responsible for it then they should be prosecuted just like Borf...
I would tend to agree that Verizon should be fined here. Perhaps with incremental fines. But this marketing is probably not the work of Verizon directly, but rather an outside agency. Verizon probably is somewhat aware of the scope of the campaign, but it's not as if the CEO is out there himself doing this. If you really want to punish someone, punish the ad agency that is the one actually doing the vandalizing.
As for whether this is better or worse than John Tsombikos, I think it's clearer better. We can quickly identify the perpetrator and stop it. Tsombikos vandalized all over this city for years before he was identified (and he never used a paint that would wash away with a rainstorm).
Besides, if you truly can't stand the opressive nature of commercial advertisements in the public arena, you can petition the government to change the regulations that govern them and they can enact strict fines on violators. Vandalism like that of Tsombikos is by its nature unregulatable. It usurps the authority of the people to control their own public space. All for the self-glorification of one person, and perhaps the vicarious thrill of some others who love to poke sticks in the eyes of authority, for whatever reason.
If public art is what you want, then petition the government to allow and support it. If not enough people agree with you, than maybe you need a better understanding of what the "public" part of public space means.
Even *if* it is chalk, I think that is an arrestable offence in DC, as it is classified under vandalism. The reason that I remember this is that there was a protest group that wanted to stage an arrest in front of the White House, and they agreed to start drawing in chalk for the Secret Service to arrest them.
Verizon should be hit hard for this. I agree with the previous poster, at least borf was something sometimes interesting or funny, not someone who wants to create market share... This type of corporate vandalism of our public space is much worse to me.
i'd fine or jail or whatever all of them. from the captain of the ship or the direct actors. facilatators, coconspirators all of them.
verizon benefitted from this directly and enabled it so they do need to feel it. even if it was outsourced.
this is really petty on one front, but it is inane.
It might be important to note that it has already been established (while both Borf and Verizon/its parntners may have broken the law):
Corporate speech IS NOT the same as free speech.
Chris,
Really no speech is "free speech". The question is whether the speech in question is protected from government regulation by the first amendment. Commercial speech (not "corporate speech", there's not such thing as "corporate speech") is in fact protected by the first amendment, although not to the same extent that normal or political speech is.
But, more importantly, commercial speech IS more protected than vandalism. There is no first amendment protection to vandalize, regardless of the content of vandalism. In this instance both Tsombikos and Verizon are vandalizing and neither receives protection under the First Amendment.
And again, I suggest that if you really think Tsombikos' work was a worthy addition to the public space, then why don't you petition the government to allow his form of vandalism? If it is the public's space, shouldn't the public decide what's right for it, not one bored spoiled brat with a spray can that wants to treat DC like some sort of desk in detention hall?
I am guessing Verizon's agency who handled this probably got some sort of permission. I work at a PR/marketing agency and I just can't imagine a client ever letting us do something without knowing that they won't be legally liable for the outcome, but maybe I am giving them too much credit.
I just sent Verizon an email through their website. it will probably lead to nothing but it made me feel better.
guerilla marketing is so 2005:
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/special/2005/graffiti102105.html
I would guess they are banking (correctly) on apathy and the public's "learned helplessness" in relation to advertising to protect them. And without the recent example of Borf, I think they would have been completely safe. But given that this city has recently become very aware of the legal ramifications of public stenciling, they may have over-played their hand.
Free speech debates aside - how lame is an advertising campaign to use PHONE BOOKS! Phone books?! Even the superpages.com site is pretty behind other online sites... this should be punished doubly for being crass, tacky and all around foolish!
The usual corporate graffiti campaign is bad enough, but aside from the vandalism, Verizon should be punished for lack of imagination. They didn't hire graffiti artists to promote their product. They didn't come up with a cryptic slogan for people to puzzle about. They just slapped down a bunch of straightforward stenciled plain text ads, without even an interesting font to indicate a minimal level of creative effort.
Notwithstanding the vandalism issue, look at the buzz this campaign has generated. It may be lame to advertise phone books and the delivery may have been unimaginative, but people are talking. Mission accomplished?
I don't think phonebooks are like Flavor Flav; not all press is good press for them.
Yes, d, they're using the same "no such thing as bad publicity" strategy that will be sending Jonathan Rees to the city council later this year.
Vandalism? They distroyed property? Maybe a bit distasteful, but they haven't destroyed anything. The stuff apparently washes off.
As of this afternoon, there were people contracted to get rid of the ads. But, at the Chinatown metro, they have the same ads, but crudely taped to a lightpost near the bus stop.
got this from my Adams Morgan listserv. wherever you see them, take note and follow up:
There is a guerilla advertising group that is paid to place graffiti
advertising in Public Space. Another location was identified to me yesterday that was orange containing a Verizon advertisement. Now I understand there are two on Connecticut Ave sidewalks in Woodley Park near the Chipotle and Mr. Chen's. I would appreciate it if anyone sees such advertisement to e-mail me so that we can ensure it is removed and the parties properly sanctioned. You may reach me at denise.wiktor@dc.gov.
Thank you.
Denise Wiktor
Public Space Manager
District Department of Transportation
The goal of the advertising agency is to get their message, lame as it is, in front of as many eyes as possible. Given that, I would really love it if a copycat or two would put some nice big word-obscuring Borf stenciling on top of each and every one of these ugly little sidewalk notes.
In chalk, of course.