Don't think of a billboard
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 2:22PM A friend and regular reader suggested that I comment on the media saturation in our lives, and especially advertising:
“I'd love to see you write something regarding the constant advertising, greener grass mongering, that people are constantly inundated with on a daily basis. If you count the number of times a day your life encounters advertising, I think you'd be alarmed. Is this really benefitting anyone? Are all of the gadgets that make you do more for less improving your quality of life? I think not. Hell, you can’t go to the bathroom without having some form of advertising shoved down your throat. Are you in a hurry? Eat this? Too fat? Try this diet. You should look like this... Depressed? Take this. Need a new car? Buy this!”
Since this individual lives in Texas, it made me think of my trip earlier this year, driving from Texas back to Vermont. One of the many things that struck me about the landscape along the way was billboards. I won’t go into any descriptive prose about them, since all Americans are familiar with them, aside from a few children in Vermont. For those of you unfamiliar with Vermont, the reason why children here might not know about billboards is that we banned them in 1968. We decided that they were a blight on the landscape and that the beauty of our landscape was important to us.
This brings me to the concept of voluntary vs. involuntary media. It’s simple, really. People can’t avoid seeing a billboard. People have to turn on a television and select a channel at a particular time to see a particular program. It’s similar for books, magazines, and radio, although the linear tuning of radios can expose us to a lot of unwanted content before we reach our chosen station. The regulation of any media for content is not my focus here.
The medium of roadside billboards is offensive in itself, regardless of content. The billboard companies and the advertisers who use them have taken it upon themselves to build a structure that obstructs our view for no other purpose than to inject an idea into our heads without our consent. Sure, nobody really likes television advertising, but when we turn on a commercial station we are choosing to endure the admixture of propaganda with our entertainment. We have the freedom to travel our highways, and sometimes we must travel. Aside from blessed Vermont, this exposes us to unwanted mental intrusion by advertisers.
It is analogous to telemarketing, another involuntary intrusion into our lives by advertising. Let’s say you live on a quiet country road, distant from other houses. Now imagine that a man from an advertising company stands out in the public right of way with a bullhorn and starts shouting advertising slogans at your house. You could call the police and have him arrested for disturbing the peace. He hasn’t physically trespassed, but he has intruded on your expected quiet and privacy without your consent. So it is with telemarketers.
In the case of billboards, the crime is twofold. It is an unwarranted intrusion with no secondary redeeming value. It is also a blot on the landscape. There is a body of law that holds the general appearance of an area to be public property, a community resource. A community is perfectly within its rights to restrict the commercial modification of the landscape on aesthetic grounds. Given the context of the saturation advertising we experience, as noted by my friend, it is a psychological imperative that we spare ourselves this ubiquitous insult to our collective consciousness.
Some businesspeople may appeal to the 1st Amendment, but the subject is community building standards, not advertising content. We don’t allow advertisers to physically grab people on the street and scream in their faces, no matter what the message. Communities can and do legally regulate signage.
And what of the message of the medium, in terms of McLuhan’s dictum? The message is that advertisers have the right to define our physical environment and our visual experiences without our consent. They do not have that right, and we should deny them the opportunity. Vermont did it almost 40 years ago. What are the rest of you waiting for?
Reader Comments (5)
Germany, 1939: "Communities can and do legally regulate Jews". It's a sad day in America when a person can't erect a structure on his or her property without getting approval from the local busybodies. I think if I lived in Vermont I might consider moving next door where they "Live Free or Die".
There are also no billboards in Maine, with the exception of a very large Poland Spring sign on Rt. 26 which must have something to do with their considerable tax payments to the state.
Not only do they try to rip you off, they send your email out and you get a ton of junk mail.
Ïîðíî ôîòî ó÷èëîê
Ïîðíî ôîòî ó÷èëîê
On the way back we stop buy Reno and after lunch, Jessie and I play a little bet in local http://sellerunited.com/blog/" rel="nofollow">casino and won some money so that was my best Christmas preset, I still can not believe it happened with me…