The Everest ad is not a gateway drug to a full-time Opera House billboard
Not all public space is created equal, especially when it comes to advertising. But where do we draw the line when it comes to corporate involvement? Here, Thinkerbell’s Adam Ferrier mulls over the much-touted slippery slope argument.
In new news, the Sydney Opera House is set to offer the sails available programmatically. They will be available for corporate sponsorship 24/7, each minute going to the highest bidder.
This of course is not going to happen.
To suggest that this one-off promotion of the Everest horse race is going to lead to the continued corporatisation of our greatest national assets has as much reality as people thinking marijuana is a gateway drug to ice addiction. One does not necessarily follow the other.
This is a great idea – can someone please go and project an ad on ScoMo’s church and see if he objects to that!! Maybe to free the kids in Naru?
Barcelona FC are among other things, one of the most recognisable brands in the world, associated with arguably the most famous person in the world (Messi).
Part of its brand is “mes que un club” which is actually spelled out in the seats of the stadium.
As part of making themselves distinct they traditionally did not “sell out” by putting a sponsor on their shirt.
In 2006 this changed as they put a Unicef logo on their shirt. And instead of asking for money, they instead paid Unicef. The president at the time said this was another example of “mes que un club” but cynics said it was a move to get the fans used to seeing advertising on the shirt.
Fast forward a few years and FC Barcelona had Qatar Airways on their shirts. That would be a brand associated with human rights abuse and literally working indentured labourers to death in the sun.
Cynics should be listened to sometimes. No advertising on the Opera Bridge.
“Personally, I’d leave the Sydney Opera House alone to be free of advertising. Yet I love the light projections of Vivid, and enjoyed the protestors writing ‘No War’ on its sails some years ago, so even my own stance is internally somewhat hypocritical.”
The Vivid projections are not advertising and ‘enjoying’ graffiti is not the same as endorsing advertising on the OH. Much of the debate was also on the bullying behaviour of Allan Jones and the capitulation of a gov’t that rewarded bad behaviour. If the OH original approach was adopted the whole thing would have passed with barely a murmur.