British Colleges Selling Screen Saver Ad Space

gotroot801 writes: "The Chronicle of Higher Education is reporting that eighteen British institutions plan to generate income during the coming academic year by displaying advertisements on the computer screen savers of students, professors, and staff members. Why does this remind me of that Simpsons episode where Troy McClure is teaching a Pepsi-sponsored class?"

Comments

Need more school income? This is a good idea.

[DrEldarion]

Especially in areas where funding for schools is absolutely horrible. I know you anti-advertisement-nazis will jump all over this, but there is NO harm in showing some pepsi ads on the screen while no one is at the computer. I mean, hell, they might not even HAVE those computers if it weren't for the advertisements.

These schools need funding, they get it through showing advertisements in a non-obtrusive manner. I say that all underfunded schools should do this. Some school systems need as much money as they can get...

-- Dr. Eldarion --

What they don't say

[JCCyC]

Will the screensaver time be forced to a certain value? Forbidden to be changed thru Windows system policies? What about turning off the monitor when you live? What about blacklisting the companies participating in the annoyance and starting a boycott? (College students ARE of the activist type, you know.)

Acceptable commercials policy: a can of worms

[mfarah]

I'm not gonna go into the obvious "alcohol & cigarettes comercials are forbidden because that's the policy", but on two more subtle ones:

• Are political campaigns acceptable? Condom commercials acceptable? Commercials from OTHER colleges?
  
  
• Who will get to set the "unacceptable" policy and how will its fairness be enforced? For example, let's say that I'm a raving laborist, and I decide to ban propaganda from the Conservative Party in my college. Or worse, let's say that Coca-cola has lots of ads in this system, and Pepsi pays me to ban those commercials.

Of course, the loss of "editorial" independence of the college is a serious peril.

Re:Need more school income? This is a good idea.

[error0x100]

but there is NO harm in showing some pepsi ads on the screen while no one is at the computer

Has it occurred to you that any intended impartiality (and thus quality) of education is immediately placed at risk when the interests of a third-party are involved? Consider: (1) Do you think an education should be questioning and impartial? (2) Do you think that your education will in all cases remain questioning and impartial should a conflict of interests arise between the educators and the sponsors? (As an example, we already have educational institutions that ONLY teach Microsoft software, in exchange for donations of computers from Microsoft.)

This sort of thing happens, and will happen more and more in the future, particularly as more advertisers (and universities) start to realise that they get much better results from a highly targeted audience - that is, companies specifically related to some field sponsoring education of students within that field. That of course is nothing new, but in the past the sponsorship has been quiet and behind-the-scenes, while currently the trend is towards not only more overtly visible sponsorshop, but editorial control of the content of lectures by the sponsors. So Pepsi is not a very good example, as they probably don't have much interest in whether Linux or Windows gets used in the labs. But other sponsors will; and the Universities will accept those sponsors above Pepsi because more targeted advertising means better results which means more money.

Schools do need money of course, so this may in many cases not be a bad thing. Where do you draw the line?

Regarding the "nazi" comment: although I realise it was probably just hyperbole for effect, I kind of resent the noxious implication of an immediate association between being "anti-advertisement" and being a nazi. As I have explained, there can be valid reasons to be against this type of advertising; its a lot harder to justify the kind of fanatical white supremacy associated with nazis :)

Re:Need more school income? This is a good idea.

[T.Hobbes]

You do realize that the nazis were, in general, all for advertising; it was mostly state advertising - what you'd pejoritavly call 'propaganda' - but advertising none the less. From this freudian slip one can glean the reason why people arn't too keen on having pepsi logos within the walls of a school - because a school must be an area where one is free to think, and free from the imposition of the ideologies and ideas by others. This is, of course, never the case in practice; that is, however irrelevent - though theft continues, society deems it worthwhile to keep theft on the books as a crime. Likewise, though the school environment will never be absolutly free in an intellectual sense, this is no reason to allow for the introduction of programs which diminish the freedom of thought within said school.

Advertising is, in and of itself, deteremental to the freedom of thought, whereever it exitsts. The sole purpose of advertising is to change the opinion of those advertised to towards the desired opinion of the advertiser. Pepsi wants you to think two things: that consumerism is the path to happiness, and that consumption of Pepsi is the ideal path to consumer bliss. The first of their tenants is the most significant; the consumer culture is the dominant culture in the Wester world, making institutions of higher learning very significant places vis-a-vis societal decisions regarding said culture. If the consumer culture is ever to be altered or removed, it is the institutions of higher learning which will be instrumental in effecting that change. Thus, to have private interests on _either_ side of the consumerism debate press their views within the school environment, and press those views through the medium of advertising, is detremental to society's future direction vis-a-vis consumerism, if only because it limits the ability of important members of society to choose freely where they stand on the issue.

On the issue of funding; while schools may be short of money for chalk, blackboards, or CRTs, this is no excuse for the erroding of the very purpose of the school. As I have outlied above, advertising is counter-productive the program of a school in general. Thus, if a school finds itself short of money, it should and must raise the funds it needs from legitimate sources; in the case of the United Kingdom, this is very clearly the state (if you do not know already, the state funds schools in Great Britian to a very large extent, nearly- or completely eliminating the need for student fees). If the stone of government has run dry, tell the student to wear sweters in winter; reduce expenses; be inventive. Do not, however, fundamentally comprimise the purpose of the institution on the alter of the e-classroom.