Man Stops Traffic at 17th and K to Demand $200 Million
Morning Roundup: Goodbye, Abe Edition
Judge Throws Out WTU Suit Over Teacher Layoffs
Vegetate to Close at the End of the Month
Morning Roundup: Rain Won't Go Away Edition
Feel like your morning commute isn't already filled with enough ads for Lockheed Martin or the anti-abortion lobby? Then the Examiner brings you good tidings, as a proposal is on the table to greatly expand the amount of space available to advertisers on Metrorail and Metrobuses. Metro General Manager John Catoe hopes the proposal will help balance the long out of whack WMATA budget without increasing fares.
But just where would the ads go? Some spots that could soon be for sale include the ceilings and inside of rail car doors, on station floors and a new giant advertisement on the outside of headquarters’ building near Judiciary Square. Just think how impressively frightening that AEGIS Combat System will look in 14' x 48'.
Of course, the proposal is not without controversy, as some people fear some of the ads may be quickly ruined (like on the floor) or lead to safety issues (like inside rail car doors). And then there's the idea to expand ad space to the wild west of the Interwebs.
Metro often receives politically controversial advertising to run in its rail stations and inside rail cars, such as recent posters airing opposing views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Kauffman is worried about the response Metro will get if those ads are posted on its Web site.
“It is one thing to have a controversial ad in a station, but it is another to have it on the Internet where folks holed up all over the country can start e-mailing about it,” he said.
Oh noes! People might start emerging from their "holes" and start "e-mailing," and there's nothing at all we could do to stop them! It's a world gone mad, we tell you.
So what say you, D.C.? Are you willing to have your public transit be entirely swallowed up by commercial interests to save yourself an extra dollar every day? Or will you now begin furiously typing letters to Naomi Klein?
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Why not just put billboards up in a ring around the Fed, DC, and MD Capitals, and the Wilson Building? The profits from those could then be channeled to METRO.
At least it'd be clear who's selling out who.
it's tacky and will spell the end of the metro as we all know it.
and does anyone else think those argyle cartoons as stupid as hell? get something like The Far Side on, that's 100 times better than that shit!
classy.
i think can all agree that as americans we need more reminders to consume.
they can advertise on every inch of the metro for all i care, as long as it keeps running and keeps fares the same. what does it matter?
thanks for your thoughts on the argyle cartoons, emBarq, not that they have anything to do with this particular post... I knew somebody would find a way to complain about them sooner or later. I, for one, think they're mildly humorous - and that's better than nothing.
Regarding the Metro ads--- I think its a good idea to expand them. The few that I see on trains are usually pretty interesting...so a few more couldn't hurt. Not saying drape the entire train system with them or anything...but i wouldn't mind some exciting VITAMINwater ads or something :)
Metro needs money. Advertisers are willing to give Metro money in exchange for ads. Seems like a sensible idea to me.
But if you are opposed to increased advertising, then I suppose you do support:
1. higher fares, or
2. reduced service, or
3. deferred maintenance, or
4. no further expansions of service, or
5. laying of employees, or
well, what would be your solution? And don't say "dedicated funding" because that isn't going to happen any time soon (if ever) and Metro needs money now.
It matters because there seems to be this assumption that advertisers and corporations have the right to blast their insipid promotional messages at the public anywhere and everywhere we go. Maybe I don't want to be sold McDonald's walnut salads after I've paid my money to ride the metro... maybe WE have a right to NOT have commercials shot at us every time we turn our heads.
I don't see a problem with ads on the outside of the trains. Hell, I think that the red Nats cars are cool.
It's not like DC would be the first city to have ads inside their train cars.
If this is a way to keep costs down for the system I say go for it (and include more of those ads in the tunnels that appear animated when you go past them at high speeds).
Maybe the US Military could break off a lil' sumpin' from their tax funded gravy train to help the cause?
How many of you seriously scrutinize the interior or exterior of your bus or train every morning and afternoon? Who gives a shit? Hell, I'm more concerned about the dude coughing onto the back of my neck or the fat woman who, out of physical necessity, sits ON me as she sits NEXT to me. Compared to the real annoyances of public transit, advertisments are nothing. And there's a cure, believe it or not! Don't like the Palestine or Israel ads? Open up an Onion. Lockheed-Martin got you down? Catch up on some sleep. Bothered by the full-body Nationals ad on the outside of your train? Stop having out-of-body experiences. Above all, get over yourself and enjoy the fact that Metro is keeping fares at the same level without having to lay off employees or reduce their already abysmal service.
Is the Metro supposed to be some sort of ad free artist colony or something? What's the big deal about this, who gives a flaming fuck?
"maybe WE have a right to NOT have commercials shot at us every time we turn our heads."
Well actually I don't think we have a right to that. We could CHOOSE not to have them (which is quite different than having a right to not have them) but that choice comes with a cost, namely the opportunity cost associated with a ad-less train.
This is a city, and personally, I think cities are vibrant, in part, because of advertisements. While the stations are catherdral-esque, they are not actually catherdrals (and even catherdrals understand the basic appeal of some flashy colors).
I am in favor of a balance, but I don't support the whiney I-can't-bear-to-look-at-an-advertisement position. And moreover, I'm not willing to subsidize it either.
All that being said, I doubt advertisement revenues will amount to more than a drop in the bucket. I think fare increases are inevitable and probably not the end of the world, either.
"Maybe I don't want to be sold McDonald's walnut salads after I've paid my money to ride the metro... maybe WE have a right to NOT have commercials shot at us every time we turn our heads."
You have a right to try to avoid advertisements, but you have no right to ride the Metro. If you don't like the advertisements, you can choose to travel by any other means you desire.
Personally, I don't care if there's advertisements. If it keeps fares lower and/or allows for improvements throughout the system, then I'd rather have that money come from advertisers than me.
More Ads = Reduction of Price Hikes
Ummmm, why is that bad?
Metro runs on money, they will get it from our pockets or from advertisers. I would rather they get more money from advertisers than from me.
"All that being said, I doubt advertisement revenues will amount to more than a drop in the bucket. I think fare increases are inevitable and probably not the end of the world, either."
Agreed. So why do this if there's no win/win and we'll need to raise fairs anyway? I like the peace of mind that metro, with it's cathedral ceilings, muted colors, and subdued lighting offers. Should we chip away at that just so that the inevitable fairs-increase is a drop in the bucket less?
you pay to go to a movie theatre, rent a film, watch cable TV, etc - and you pay a LOT more for those than for your ride to work. those are full of commercials, whether its a Coke can in Linlo's hand or an actual ad. Agreed that the ad revenue won't solve all of metro's problems, but it's better than a roundhouse kick to the face.
As long as the ads aren't plastered onto poles like that asshole polehumper in my car this morning, this isn't the end of the free world and it shouldn't start fist fights.
I was always surprised by how little advertising is on the metro - if you go to any other city in this country (or in europe), trains and buses are filled to the hilt with ads. It can generate a large amount of revenue, and metro definitely needs to exploit it.
I suppose all of that is true, but I will miss the cathedral like feel of some of the metro station platforms. The adverts currently there are easy enough to avoid looking at, but if you slather the floor, well that's another story.
Pragmatism would require the slathering, though, if it keeps costs down. sigh.
Speaking of metro advertising, I wonder if those in-tunnel flip books are as effective as they thought they'd be. They've been off more than on, in my experience.
There's no doubt that americans prefer their precious dollar above all else. That's why your country is so homogenized.
You know, Pyongyang has a beautiful subway system, with cathedral ceilings and chandeliers. And somehow they manage to do it without any advertisements or ugly signs of capitalism in the entire city!
North Koreans must be so thankful they don't have to worry about McDonalds ads spoiling their wonderful commute.
I was sort of surprised to see the political issue ads on the Metro going to and from the capitol campus.
Until our country and government support public transport the same way they do automobiles and freeways, systems like METRO are forced to take actions like this one, to make ends meet. When will this country wake up and support public transport?
Chris, I certainly support more transit, but it's probably not fair to say that our government does not support transit the same way they do highways. For the most part, highways are funded by the gas tax. You can get off on a discussion of the externalities of highways, and how governments pay for those, but on the pure "where does the money that pays for the asphalt come from" question, it's mostly the users of the asphalt that pay for it. That cannot be said for most transit projects.
Don't get me wrong, I think there are reasons to subsidize transit (gets people off the road, environmental, etc.) but it's a subsidy nonetheless.
Countries with dedicated funding and full-on transport systems still take ads. Try riding the Tokyo metro without being visually assaulted by ads containing comely young schoolgirls with C-cups beckoning your to take English classes.....
"I was sort of surprised to see the political issue ads on the Metro going to and from the capitol campus."
This is the second time in one day (um, and the second time ever for that matter) that I have seen the congressional buildings referred to as a "campus." Where is this terminology coming from? I don't argue that it might be a useful term, but it just suddenly cropped up out of nowhere...
DGB:
Do you really think it proper to compare "Great Society" projects with North Korea?
Normally I hate ads but honestly, the metro stations and cars are so drab and dull I think the ads would do more good than harm to the asthetics of the stations. Look at the McDonalds ad in the photo...isn't it nice to see a color besides orange brown or gray in a metro station?
"...isn't it nice to see a color besides orange brown or gray in a metro station?"
What does that have to do with advertising?
I thought we all had to be reminded to Spend, Spend, Spend our way to victory in the War on Terror.
How's that going?
Mark, my point is that having to see ads on the Metro is a pretty trivial thing for people to be complaining about.
JennX,
You think its because of a new crop of summer college interns?
The folks that want the ads on the metro are probably the same dolts who voted Starbucks the best coffeehouse in Washington, DC.
Im all for it as long as space is reserved for non-profits and DC/Metro DC groups.
DGB:
Not really. The income generated by these ads, which might contribute a nominal amount to defraying METRO's expenses and the forthcoming fare increases, isn't worth the precedent they set.
I'm looking at the cost/benefits with an eye toward the long game. It might seem like a small thing today and to you, but that's what incrementalism is all about.
It's sad to me that METRO, a high-minded project of the post WWII Great Society, would be debased in the present.
Whatever. METRO space is just another commodity to be exploited to little public gain. I get it. In fact, I eagerly anticipate the "Your Car is Your Credit" commercials on the Green Line.
I don't care if there's so many ads I can't see the cement anymore. It will keep the metro going, might even bring in some extra funds, and rates won't go up.
I don't see why people are so bothered with ads. Are you that controlled by consumtion that when you see an ad you go 'I MUST GO BUY THAT!' Most people read on the metro anyway, and if you have nothing to read, I'd rather look at a clever ad than a dirty carpet. Which might get cleaner with extra money coming in.
It does raise some interesting First Amendment issues. I'm sure Metro has some sort of policy on this, but what's to stop the KKK or some anti-gay group from painting up an entire car in inflammatory hate speech, or subjecting morning commuters to a diatribe on why they think it's ok to hate certain people, complete with the flippy slide show things as you travel through the tunnels? It'd actually be a very smart ad buy on their part, as the controversy generated is exactly what they are looking for.
actually, at eastern motors, your JOB is your credit.
Corporate graffiti.
Didn't Metro get into a lot of hot water a few years about over some medical marijuana ads? I recall some Congressman getting his panties in a bundle over that. Or maybe it was a needle exchange program ad? I can't really recall, I was quite high at the time and busy looking for my...uh...insulin needles.
I think some clever ads would brighten up the otherwise brutalist interiors of Metro, so long as they're static images and not more godforsaken LCD screens blaring Blur's "Song 2" while hip retirees try to sell me on the adult diaper lifestyle. Maybe some of the delightful ads we see here on dcist. Like the clothing ones complete with erect nipples, semi-cameltoe, or the ones for plays with people being choked.
And I'm pretty sure SCOTUS has ruled that you have no right to avoid advertisements, in the same way you have to right to freedom FROM religion.
I think we need MORE not LESS full-sized images of Alison Starling on the inside or outside of Metro trains.
Hill Rat, you just made my day :-)
At least these ads are cheery. Has anyone seen the ads on the bus? My favorites are "You should get tested for hepatitis" or "Become a human lab rat for $50!" At least the McDonald's ad doesn't make me feel like I am failing at life.
"actually, at eastern motors, your JOB is your credit."
"Fords, Hondas, Chevy Beamers and mini vans over 600 cars, trucks, SUVs Are you listening man!"
Reid - I'm not sure that I would say highways are "mostly" funded by the gas tax. While it's true that many sources of highway funding come under the user fee label (fuel taxes, vehicle license fees, tolls, etc.), states also use sources such as general funds, sales tax revenue, and bonds to finance highway projects. It varies state to state, but generally highways do not pay for themselves any more than transit does.
FOX 5, which actually has decent *local* news coverage, runs "Your car is your credit" ads. I forget by who, but they're not by Eastern Motors.
I guess they know their demographic.
As someone who hasn't seen a teevee advertisement in YEARS, I wish they could make a TiVo for billboard ads. Print the stuff on special ink so that if you didn't want to see the ad, put on some polarized glasses and the ad disappears. I'd pay a subscription for that.
That, and more fullsize Eun Yang.
In my pants.'
Bow chika chika bow.
Mark, I really don't think that more ads on the Metro will cheapen the high-mindedness of DC's mass transit. I'm actually of the opinion that advertisements can contribute to a city's character. The Metro isn't a museum-piece shrine to 1960s-era public works, its a working transit system in need of creative funding approaches. Advertisements can contribute to this, while also showcasing the commerce of DC.
Personally, I don't see how covering some of the concrete in Metro Center with posters for the Nats or the Bodies exhibit destroys the atmosphere. I think it contributes to it.
"I don't see how covering some of the concrete in Metro Center with posters for the Nats or the Bodies exhibit destroys the atmosphere. I think it contributes to it."
It would, *if* it were done in a way that didn't undermine the essential character of space. I think that's a pretty big if.
It would, *if* it were done in a way that didn't undermine the essential character of space. I think that's a pretty big if.
And by "essential character" you mean the concrete-ness of the concrete walls? You'd have no problem with ads for concrete companies, sound damping equipment, and plexiglass then?
If anything, they need more ads for deodorant and breath fresheners so maybe people would GET THE POINT. Cologne on your junk does not equal regular bathing, Mr. Eurotrash. And maybe they trim their toenails on the trains on Planet Moron, but you're in Capitol City now.
I'm with DGB. I'm tired of the Soviet Socialist Metro and its tired `I Love the Seventies'' decor of orange and brown. If some folks here are so nostalgic for the 1960s and taxpayer funded public works, let them go to Cuba or North Korea and see how great those countries run without capitalism. San Francisco, one of the most liberal cities in the nation, along with London, have hundreds of ads in their subway systems to help defray costs. A few more ads in Metro stations won't hurt.
Will you capitalist apologists please devise a arguement other than "go to cuba or north korea and see how great it is there if you don't like it"? You just keep belching out the same talking points year after year. It's almost as if you are incapable of formulating your own thoughts.
My favorite was the phrase "Soviet Socialist Metro". This for a public works project built in the capital city of the USSR's only credible opponent- at the height of the Cold War.
I can't believe it took Metro this long to figure this one out---I say hell yes to pimping out Metro if it keeps fares down. Who does it hurt?
d has a point. The old "if you don't like it, go somewhere else" argument is pretty standard when it comes to DC voting rights. "Don't like it? Move to a REAL state." Falls pretty flat when nobody has any real intention of moving anywhere.
That said, please, please, kids. Stop fighting. Maybe Lisa's right about America being the land of opportunity and maybe Adil has a point about the machinery of capitalism being oiled with the blood of the workers.
I guess those of us who don't want the ads are in a different frame of mind. That maybe, the marginal financial gains from selling out to the highest bidder are not worth the high price of degrading the grand caverns that suit both form and function in a dignified, understated way. And maybe we do think that being the capital city of this country, we should strive to be better than the average transit system so that maybe we can project the fact that evey square inch of our democracy is not for sale, and neither is our government. Diasgree with that premise fine, but don't give me any crap about wall-to-wall ads adding 'character' to the subway system, because that's a crock of shit. If you want to liven up the system, look at encouraging artwork, or improving platform design and signage. The financial argument is wholly separate, and in my opinion not even remotely a worthwhile tradeoff.
Krisa, the argument that some advertising adds character to the metro (and society) is no more a "crock of shit" than your contention that the lack of ads means a subway system is dignified. As I said before, the Pyongyang subway has no ads, but I'd rather not ride it everyday.
In my view, its great to see AEGIS Combat System and Israel/Palestine ads in the Metro, because in what other city would companies and groups advertise this stuff underground? So yes, it contributes to the character of DC. In the New York Subway, the tunnels are full of ads for TV shows, because NYC is the country's largest TV market. And in Boston, some Green Line trollies are (for some reason) covered in ads for Rockstar Games and Grand Theft Auto. Its quirky, and it adds to the identity of the city.
And I certainly understand that some people may disagree, but calling my view "crap" and railing against capitalism is really ridiculous.
Krisa and I see it the same.
Look there's already ads in the metro. Who's complaining about those? Not me. What I think is foolish is to trash the esthetic of the place for benefits that are unqualified, unquantified and, in all probability, very marginal.
At the risk of being mocked incessantly, METRO is more than a transit system. It's an ideal, a model, a symbol, and it's a symbol of DC.
As an aside, it's funny how no one has brought the Moscow subway system into this conversation.
With advertising physically this close to the propagandee, i see some "culture jamming" on the horizon...
Metro as an ideal? Metro as a symbol? Please.
Metro is a system that gets people from Point A to Point B. Nothing more, nothing less. It is Metro's job to get people from Point A to Point B in as efficient and safe a manner as possible. That takes money and short of cutting service or raising fares, advertising is the only realistic way to bring in that money.
Or perhaps this idea. Charge people $25 to enter the Metro in off hours to stare at the "symbolism" found in the "cathedral-like" public spaces. Let those people subsidise the system.
METRO is an ideal. It's a publicly-funded mass transit system. It would never be built in today's social climate. Hell, people can't even agree on how to (barely) expand it.
And so far as the point A to B utilitarian business is concerned, do you really think the design was not intended to make a statement? Our most loved things are both utilitarian and beautiful. Who much for the "International" style in architecture?
The last sentence should read: "who cares much for the "international style" in architecture.
That, BTW, did come out of the Soviet Block.
Mark, what in today's social climate is limiting the construction of publicly-funded mass transit systems? Last I checked, public transit continues to be built and expanded all over the country. LA opened a brand new subway about a decade ago, and countless cities (including New York, Boston, and of course DC) are in various stages of expanding their existing systems.
Do you think DC's core would be dug today? Would we go to that time and expense? Consider Tysons.
Also, I'm missing the relevance of the other cities you cite. What do they have to do with the social priorities of the Feds, VA, or MD- our main funding sources?
I referenced the other cities because you seemed to suggest that "publicly-funded mass transit systems" in general could not be built in today's social climate. I beg your pardon if you were only referring to the climate of DC.
But I still don't see what "social climate" is limiting the construction of mass transit in our area. The Green Line was completed less than 10 years ago, and although future generations will regret that the Dulles line will be above ground through Tysons, its much better than not building the line at all.
And in regard to the other cities, they all have or will receive federal funds for their subway projects, which suggests the feds' "social priorities" are still friendly to mass transit.
I view METRO as a particularly useful and beautiful object lesson in Great Society ideology. We built it with public moneys while fighting the USSR and putting people on the moon. The essence of that era is writ large in the architecture.
Setting budgetary differences aside and returning to the central point, if you don't see and value these things, if you see METRO as simple utilitarian mass transit, I suppose we should agree to disagree.
Mark's right. Some will see Metro's design as aesthetically clean and minimalist. Others see it as sterile and authoritarian. Still others as the last gasp of Great Society utopianism and brutalist architecture. You're all right. But the system reflects the society that created it and that society (and Metro's users) have changed. Fugly ads are a reflection of the fugly society that refuses to fund Metro to the extent that they don't need fugly ads.
Just to follow up on Mark's point. There's nothing wrong with publicly-funded public works; take the new Wilson Bridge, the new Oakland to Treasure Island span in the Bay Area, the Silver Line to Dulles, and even the much-maligned Inter-County Connector.
The point I'm making is that the Brutalist authoritarian style of the Metro hasn't held up well. (Anybody here a fan of the J. Edgar Hoover Building?)
1960s era public works aren't necessarily ugly either. BART in the Bay Area was built in a similar era by Lyndon Johnson and it has far more ads, has much more light and is far less dungeon-like.
If more ads help keep fares and taxes down on Metro, so much the better.