Google Gate?

    This last August, a proposal was brought before the board that runs the Golden Gate bridge that outlined using the bridge as a medium for advertisements. Among the ideas are a new visitor’s center on the bridge’s southern end — in San Francisco — which might be festooned with small corporate signs and sponsored historical placards, Mr. Bartram said. Other possibilities could include sponsorship of food kiosks, viewing platforms, directional signs, spots with good photo angles and even restrooms. Also, the district’s other transit operations might get advertisements on the sides of buses and commercials running on video screens in ferry terminals. It is important to note here that any commercial signs on the bridge or its tollbooths are not part of the proposal. The group that put together this formal plan cite the $30 million restoration of the bridge’s main cable, as well as the repainting of the south tower as reasons for needing corporate sponsors.
    Needless to say, this idea has shocked and outraged hundreds of people who fear that even these kinds of small infusions of ads could eventually lead to the historic landmark becoming the “Google Gate Bridge”. Jake McGoldrick, a board member who opposes the plan, said the idea of corporate sponsorship was equivalent to slapping an advertisement on the side of the White House. “I don’t think you take your iconic properties and turn them into advertising opportunities,” Mr. McGoldrick said. “There are places in the world that should be kept clean.”
Other protesters include the supporters of building a suicide barrier, who have long fought the battle of “not changing the look of a historic landmark”.
    Though it is said that “the emphasis was on the various ways that the Golden Gate might take on advertisements without really taking on ADVERTISEMENTS!” I think this is absolutely awful. If you give an inch, they’ll take a mile. Little bus signs and photo op logos are one thing, but one thing inevitably will lead to another, and eventually the bridge itself will be covered in ads.
    As a planner, I would think that yes, this is an opportunity to get my client’s name seen by the 10 million people who come to see the bridge every year, but I have to also wonder if the majority of those people, who came to see the bridge in all its historical glory, would be offended by the infusion of advertisements and therefore have a negative image of the brand.
    What do you think? Should companies be allowed to sponsor the restoration of the bridge in exchange for advertising on a historic landmark? Are there any ethical dilemmas you would have as a buyer or a seller of this ad space? As a planner, would you recommend this kind of advertising to a client, and if so, why?

Answer those questions, and then read this:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/27/BAIPT1MHO.DTL

Posted by guest author, Kristin Oberding.

Comments

[V. Stephens]

I don't think companies should be allowed to sponsor the restoration of the bridge in exchange for advertising on a historic landmark.

I think this is in poor taste.

As a planner, I would not recommend this kind of advertising to a client because it might cause accidents and defaces a cultural monument.

Why not just tattoo an ad on someone's forehead instead, that would get some coverage.

[Sabrina DeMartini]

As a Bay Area resident myself, I can absolutely say that it is immoral and unethical to put advertisements on the Golden Gate Bridge. That beautiful piece of architecture would be destroyed if ads were allowed to be plastered around and all over it. The feeling of looking out on the bay as you cross the bridge, with the Marin Headlands, towering behind you, is unlike any other. Since I live near SF, I often go running across the bridge. Watching all the hustle and bustle of the crazy San Franciscans on their way to work is actually really calming; advertisements along the bridge would completely ruin the serenity of the movement. Not to mention advertisements are meant to draw attention; let’s think this through- don’t you think it’s a bad idea to put ads on the GG Bridge, one of the worst places for stop and go traffic in Marin County? Wouldn’t people be distracted and get in crashes more often? I think I might, and simply because the ads would draw more attention from not being there from before.

As an advertiser, I would NOT sell this ad space because it’s not ad space. As a planner, I would try to find other high traffic locations (there are SO many in SF!) to have my client advertise on. I agree with Kristin that if you give them an inch, they’ll take a mile. Does the Statue of Liberty have ads on it? Does the Empire State Building? I feel that our world is getting out of hand and someone needs to speak out and stand up for ethics in advertising.

[Nick Naber]

I always thought ethics in advertising was a funny subject because the profession is all about manipulation. No matter how you spin it, the primary job of an advertiser is to make people buy things they probably don't need. Wait, no, it's to inform the consumer of the many wonderful products from which to choose from and gently nudge them to choose the crap you're trying to hock.

Cynicism aside, I agree with the posters above that advertising on a national landmark is gross. If the bridge really requires 30 million dollars in renovation the city should not resort to slapping logos everywhere. There are many spaces that should remain ad free and national landmarks are one of them. I realize that it's increasingly difficult to get people's attention, but come on. As an account planner I would hope to never be involved with an effort to deface a national icon.

[Jill Hurst]

Wow.... commercializing the Golden Gate Bridge, a recognizable national landmark..... what is our world coming to? I am an ad major so that I can make people appreciate and relate to advertising, as opposed to feeling bombarded and annoyed. This suggestion to tie the GGB to corporations shows how commercialized our society has become.

As an advertiser, I would not feel comfortable placing my product with a medium that would outrage and irritate the majority of the audience, regardless of the reach. As an account planner, I would definitely not suggest this outlet to my client because it puts a bad name on advertising, as well as the agency I worked for.

As Kristin mentioned, once you give an inch, they take a mile. Would our other national landmarks become associated with ads and corporations as well? Then what's next? The Seven Wonders of the World? Forget it, we can be creative and inventive without polluting society.

[JenJohnson]

From the perspective of a planner, the exposure and amount of visibility that the Golden Gate Bridge would provide for my client would be unbeatable. However, I feel that commercializing a national landmark is wrong and therefore would reflect poorly on any company. Besides, there are plenty of high visibility, high traffic areas in San Francisco that would accommodate any brand, product, or service without discrediting the company’s reputation. It’s unfortunate that a company feels the need for something in exchange for sponsorship, such as Google’s desire to advertise at the Golden Gate Bridge in exchange for sponsoring the bridge’s restoration.

Here’s an idea, why don’t companies offer to sponsor the restoration of a historical landmark without the exchange of something in return? Yes, this is rather unheard of in this day and age, but if Google were to offer to sponsor the restoration of the bridge without anything in return, think of the free publicity this move would get. Instead, press releases would be written praising Google’s generosity and public interest. This would automatically boost Google’s (or any other company’s) public image, therefore only continuing to help the brand.

[Molly Horner]

I agree with Sabrina. I don't think that just because there are empty spaces, we need to fill them up with advertisements. There is a time and place for advertising, and historic landmarks aren't them (neither are bathroom stalls, in my opinion, but that's a different subject).

I have a huge moral dilemma with how a lot of advertising is carried out. I feel like many advertisers feel as though they need their message to be seen everywhere - find an empty space, then fill it up. But I think this is the wrong strategy. I don't know how it is for others, but when I am bombarded with advertising when I feel like it is inappropriate (like in the ladies room), I view those brands more negatively than I would had I viewed their advertisements elsewhere, and that brand then has a bad name with me. I think this would be similar with the GG Bridge situation, and as Sabrina said, people would view those brands that advertised there differently than had they advertised somewhere else.

I hope this never happens because I feel like we, as Americans, would become totally heartless and even more money hungry if we deface historical landmarks just to make a buck.

[Molly Cathcart]

I actually just threw up in my mouth a little bit after reading this. I am absolutely disgusted that people are actually pondering this. Nearly everything we see each day is littered with advertisements, from Internet banner ads, to billboards, to TV commercials, to some lady's forehead (yes Victoria, that has been done. Some lady tattooed her forehead with a company's name for $10,000). I think landmarks should be off limits. Not only would this create a driving distraction, causing accidents, it would commercialize one of the most recognizable landmarks in the United States. I would not even consider selling this ad space. Although the message would reach tons of people, I think people would look down upon any company that chose to advertise on the bridge, so I would not advise that any company advertise on it. I agree with Sabrina that there are much more effective, less destructive places to advertise, and as a planner I would seek out those instead.

[Arthur McMahon]

Going along with the trend in these comments, I also believe it is unethical to do such a thing. I do believe sponsoring such things as restoration of historical monuments is a good thing, having to stamp your company name on the object just shows that you did this for your company and not for the monument, the history or the people.

I feel that large companies such as Google already have their name stamped all over the place. People know what Google is and I doubt their opinion of Google is going to change by seeing 'Google' stamped on the Golden Gate Bridge. A person's opinion of Google may change though if it was stated in the news how the company helped restore the historic landmark.

Sponsoring such things is good like I said before, but you have to leave your company name out of it. Let the good deed do the work instead of your logo.

[Amanda Lopez]

As a person who loves to visit San Francisco on a yearly basis, I would be devastated if advertisements covered the historic Golden Gate bridge. There is a line that is crossed why such measures are taken to pursue marketing objectives, but this is outrageous. I know that any person who values any type of landmark will understand that placing ads will diminish its core value. When I found out that Wal-Mart wanted to place ads on sacred burial grounds and near temples in Mexico, I was ready to raise hell. I think corporations need to see how placing ads in these locations can diminish their brand value and position in the market. People do take into consideration where ads are placed and this does not reflect the advertiser, but the product and/or corporation. As a planner, I would agree that ads on the Golden Gate is not a good resource for revenue; instead a corporation could use PR to sponsor the restoration of the bridge, hold an event to raise money along with their donation and have a community celebration. This brings value to the company, what they stand for and value in the bay area. As an advertiser, I would strongly advise the client not to pursue this endeavor because the risk is high and could be a potential PR nightmare

[jordan denham]

I think that companies should be able to sponsor restoration in exchange for advertising; however, the advertising should be in good taste and not excessive. If done wrong this could have a negative impact on the advertiser and the advertising industry. Many people are attached to historical landmarks, like the Golden Gate Bridge, and they don’t want the feeling to be cheapened by advertising.

If done correctly this could be a good opportunity for an advertiser to give back to a good cause. People tend only to think about products when they think about advertising, but this site could be good for advertising social issues and concerns. If different social/environmental organizations wanted to advertise they could post information in the visitor center and/or sponsor the bridge. If a big advertiser wanted to advertise it could be very limited, such as Coke being sold or a single brand of umbrellas.

[Andrea Schneider]

Reiterating what others have said, the Golden Gate bridge and other similar landmarks should be hands-off to advertisers.

It boils down to one of the key things we as people working in advertising need to constantly ask ourselves:
"Just because you could advertise somewhere, should you?"

People have different boundaries, but I believe we have the responsibility to not only serve our clients, but to serve the public as well. Is it in the public's best interest for advertisers to sponsor restoration of the bridge in exchange for ad space? Definitely not. It's not strategic, and in this case, bad press is not good press.

Also, is it the most creative solution? I think the closest suggestions someone mentioned was saying that Google or someone else could sponsor the restoration without seeing their logo plastered anywhere. I'm not even going to go down the road that it's the government's job to implement such improvements, but if a corporation wants to partake in cause or social marketing, they need to make sure it's fulfilling the public interest, not ultimately their own.