Ad Banners On Government Sites?

An Anonymous Coward asks: "Following in the as-of-yet legally uncontested footsteps of the City of Honolulu, it looks as if Fairfax County, Virginia might be adding ad banners to its official government site, according to this article on the Washington Post's website. In addition to first amendment concerns, current ad banners are designed to imitate GUI elements and could confuse a lot of citizens - what is Slashdot's take on the whole 'govads' concept?" While I understand that every city government appreciates an extra source of revenue, there are appropriate places for it, and inappropriate places. I feel a City Government's main Web site should be a banner-ad free zone. How do you feel?

Comments

Slippery Slope

[martyb]

Sure, an ad for child porn would not be allowed on that site, and an ad for a local hotel would be, right?

But what about an ad for pictures of children in "adorable poses"? Or an ad for a brothel?

Things may be "black or white" at first, but as time passes, and more and more ads push the boundary, it will be only a matter of time before they find themselves facing court battles on what is permitted and what is not. in the meantime, right?

Now, what I'm waiting for, is for most of the ads to be blocked in public libraries, city hall, etc. because of mandated filters... they might never see the ads that were going to cause them problems!

What timing

[babbage]

Wow, NPR's Marketplace is talking about this on the news right now. It seems that the BBC, PBS, and NPR are all considering the same issue now -- can a public broadcaster turn around & start running ads, considering that they've built their public reputation on public money. Interesting question.....

advertising limits?

[crow]

I always thought NASA could make a mint by selling ads painted on the shuttle's external fuel tank. Imagine launching a giant Pepsi can?

On the other hand, do you want a symbol of our national pride looking like a NASCAR race car?

It's a tough issue. Ultimately, it boils down to one thing: The government needs the revenue from the ads, but it can get the funds from taxes instead. If (and only if) citizens find the advertising less palatable than paying taxes, then it shouldn't be there.

Re:advertising limits?

[Vess V.]

Nah, they stopped painting the external fuel tank a while ago because of the great deal of weight that an unpainted tank saved. (That is why they all orange -- the metal's natural color.)

City Bus

[Deanasc]

What's the difference between this and shrinkwrapping a city bus with an ad for violent Sylvester Stallone movies? I'd think that there would be some kind of standard for what ads get put up there. Personally I want to know more about resturants and hotels and things to do when I look up a town on the net. I went to CA this fall and had a hard time finding a decent place to eat. If the town web site had menus for all the resturants in town it would have been easier. If the resturants wanted to pay for who had the first listing then let them.

Re:City Bus

[po_boy]

and you think that supplying you with a list of decent places to eat is a function of the government, even just the municipal government? I'd rather see ads for child porn on a government site before a list of approved dining establishments.

Private organizations are pretty good at listing decent restaurants. Please leave it to them rather than to something I am forced to fund.

Re:City Bus

[Deanasc]

I think the point I failed to make was that I would hope that the ads on the local gov't websites feature local interests. When you're going to San Fransisco it's easy to find resturant reviews. If you're going to spend some time in North Edwards it would have been nice for the local websites to mention what's around there. When you're driving on an interstate there are signs put there by the government advertising Stuckeys or Hardees so that drivers who aren't from arround there know they can pull over get food and take a piss. What's the difference?

Re:City Bus

[TVmelissa]

What's the difference between this and shrinkwrapping a city bus with an ad for violent Sylvester Stallone movies? I'd think that there would be some kind of standard for what ads get put up there

I don't know about anywhere else, but in Toronto, Canada, the only limit on what can be posted on a transit vehicle is the same advertising standards laws which apply to newspapers, TV, etc. In fact, it is the TTC's fiscal responsibility to accept any form of revenue which is not illegal. In other words, if you can put it on a non-TTC controlled billboard, the TTC has to sell you space if you want it, and are willing to pay for it. This leads to seeing ads for beer, birth control pills, and condoms.

Re:City Bus

[drivers]

If you're going to spend some time in North Edwards it would have been nice for the local websites to mention what's around there.

That's the function of a Chamber of Commerce, which isn't actually part of the city government, it's an organization of local businesses.

They already do.

[Len]

can a public broadcaster turn around & start running ads

Haven't you noticed that PBS runs ads before & after every show? I guess they snuck it by you, by starting out years ago with sponsorship announcements that were so brief PBS could deny that they were advertising, but now they're basically full-blown commercials.

In Canada, CBC TV has been running commercials, just like any other network, for many years. CBC Radio, on the other hand, advertises nothing except their own shows. The CBC is still our "public" broadcaster, and still gets public money, but there's been a lot of debate about its role in the last few years -- like how to reduce its dependency on public money without it devolving into constant reruns of The Simpsons and America's Funniest Shootings.
--

Re:They already do.

[babbage]

Haven't you noticed that PBS runs ads before & after every show?

Oh yeah, I realize that. I listen to a lot more NPR than I watch PBS, but same deal -- before & after each show they'll have a blurb about "funding is provided by Allaire, enabling blah blah blah" type stuff.

Apparently this report was saying that such advertisments may begin to go further now, with more mainstream-esque ads every five minutes just like or normal for-profit commercial broadcasters. That, and it suggested that the BBC has not run any ads to date (I can't confirm that part, but I understand that people have to pay to subscribe, something like cable TV here in the US), but may soon begin to. (The latter point was really the central point of the report).

I'm of at least two minds about it all. On one hand, it's nice to have a broadcast organization, and particularly a news organization, that is as independent as possible, and I know that's a fragile thing to have. IIRC, NPR caught some flack a year or two ago for it's mild coverage of corruption & fraud at Archer Daniels Midland company, because ADM was a huge supporter of NPR news. A lot of the supporters, at least for the local station (WBUR Boston), are of the new media / new economy variety (Allaire, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, et al), and it makes me wonder how critically they can cover those that are paying their bills. (In the same way that ABC has suppressed negative reports about Disney now.). On the other hand, people don't want their tax dollars paying for this, and money from pledge drives never seems to be enough, so what can they do? Personally, I'm all for 100% public (aka government) funding, but I realize I'm probably of the minority opinion on that one...

You're both wrong!

[nathanm]

The surface of the external tank is covered by a 2.5 cm thick coating of spray-on polyisocyanurate foam.

See NASA's external tank reference page.

They can have as many banner ads as they want...

[tswinzig]

...as long as they reduce my fucking taxes!

Re:Grinchin'

[whydna]

Agreed... I guess Dr. Seuss (sp?) is good enough to count as an american icon... or something... odd though.. very odd...