Slashdot Mirror
Empty Times Square Building Generates $23 Million a Year From Digital Ads
dryriver writes "Advertising things at the right place is proving to be a cash cow, as electronic ads earn about $23mn each year for an empty building at One Times Square – the iconic tourist destination in the New York City. A 25-story Manhattan office building that has long been empty keeps on bringing in millions to its owner as a billboard. Michael Phillips, CEO of Atlanta-based Jamestown Properties, bought One Times Square through a fund in 1997 for $117 million, as the Wall Street Journal reports. More than 100mn pedestrians pass through the square each year, which is 90% more than 16 years ago, says the Times Square Alliance, a non-profit business improvement organization. And this is what makes a price tag for having a company's name placed on the building the highest in the world, even above such crowded tourist destinations as Piccadilly Circus in London. Dunkin' Brands Group Inc. pays $3.6mn a year for a Dunkin' Donuts digital sign on the One Times Square building, with Anheuser-Busch InBev paying another $3.4mn a year for its advertisement. Sony and News America pay $4mn a year for a shared sign."
Strip clubs, peep shows. Return Times Square to the greatness that it once was.
Have gnu, will travel.
People making 23 million a year for doing nothing at all do not share.
And that's one of many reasons why we deserve the world we have.
Is it just me or when did "mn" surpass "m" for million? "100mn pedestrians" looks like it should be a measurement in milli-newtons per pedestrians - I'm sure the imperial equivalent is slugs per servants.
Sitting on his money? You know this How?
Nothing in the story indicates what he is spending his personal money on. For all you know he funds orphanages in East Timor.
But its easy to make accusations on the internet isn't it?
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
But the meme in the U.S. right now is that all the little guys don't do anything and basically don't even deserve enough money to live.
_The_ meme. Interesting take on a country that just re-elected the most income-distributing president of all time. We know he didn't win on his economic record. He won on the same kind of class warfare talk that you're giving right now.
right now as a country we seem to be believing the grunts aren't responsible for the success of these groups at all. At least that is what the CEOs are, as a class, believing. As a result many are saying that these people don't even believe a decent wage or deserve to share in the success of the companies they work for.
How much is a "decent wage?" I hear people all the time talk about a "living wage" on here, but nobody puts a dollar figure on it. Give me something concrete. What should the high-school drop-out ditch digger (or whatever) who has learned no marketable skills make? What kinds of things should someone making a "living" wage be able to buy? What things are over the line? For example, how new a car, what kinds of food, cell phones, cable TV, how big of house or apartment? Should this "living wage" increase because people live in a certain area, or should we pay them more because they have a bunch of kids? I want to know what a "living wage" really means.
Also, how much more should a person with a degree make than this base "living wage." I mean a real degree which enables someone to produce something of value. I'm talking about engineering, or science, or something medical (and there are plenty of others), not philosophy or communications or something that qualifies you to be a barista.
And there are plenty of people... people that hang on every word of the CEOs like they're super human, that are willing to believe it. Slashdot seems to get more of the CEO worshipers every day and are happy with the idea that corporations should be able to screw over anyone they choose as long as there is a "benefit to the shareholders."
Like the people here who worship Steve Jobs? I don't get CEO worship either, but I bet if you polled nationally, you'd find that most people _don't_ worship large corporation CEOs either. That said, I don't know what these people (most of them) do that commands the kind of money they make. No doubt many of them are _way_ overpaid, but I also bet you and I both have a lot to learn about what makes a large corporation tick.
And this article highlights another one... it's fine for a building to sit empty as long as some corporate entity is making money.
Who should be the one making it not-fine? Maybe you don't like it, but are you suggesting that there should be law that if you own a building that you should have to bring it up to modern code and rent out space? Do you have any idea what the condition of that particular building is? (I don't). Should there then be law about how much he should rent the space out for? What's your master plan for this? Don't just spout off about how evil it is that he makes a profit. Tell us what he should do, and tell us what you think the role of government is in this situation, especially with respect to private property rights.
The US has about 3 times the number of houses available then there are homeless people and many of those houses were obtained by the banks by nefarious means... but since a corporation benefits no one does anything.
Think so? I'm going to call for citation on that one. Again, what's your end-game proposal here? Should the government force the banks to let homeless people live in bank-owned houses? What's the government's role in this?
I can tell you care deeply about the homeless. How many have you taken into your home to live with you? Should the government force you to take in homeless? So I guess it's fine for a room in your home to sit empty (or "spare") while
The One Times Square building is decades obsolete for an office building. However, as a mounting point for the multimedia signs, it is very functional. The empty floors provide power and space for the equipment required to run the signs and the massive equipment required to cool the equipment that runs the signs.
Plus, it's at the crossroads of the world.
Kriston
I don't know why you were modded "funny". You're spot on. Times Square and Vegas were fantastic before they were nerfed and Disneyfied for boomers and their stupid kids.
Interesting take on a country that just re-elected the most income-distributing president of all time.
What, did they dig FDR and re-elect him?
Tax rates are a record low in the past two decades, and Obama has so far done little to change that.
We know he didn't win on his economic record. He won on the same kind of class warfare talk that you're giving right now.
No, he won on the "I'm not those guys" record. By which I mean that he's not a loony who spouts bullshit about how raped women don't conceive unless they "really wanted it" and so don't need abortions, or how gays are icky abominations that should be glad to not be in jail and just shut up about that whole marriage thing, or how Hispanics are a "culture of losers". This election wasn't really a victory for Obama - it was a loss for the bigots on extreme social conservative right. Good riddance, too. Next time try running some guy who actually focuses on the economy. Having a fiscal plan which does not involve money conjured from thin air to balance the budget helps there (or, at least, don't claim that it'll balance!).
How much is a "decent wage?" I hear people all the time talk about a "living wage" on here, but nobody puts a dollar figure on it. Give me something concrete. What should the high-school drop-out ditch digger (or whatever) who has learned no marketable skills make? What kinds of things should someone making a "living" wage be able to buy? What things are over the line? For example, how new a car, what kinds of food, cell phones, cable TV, how big of house or apartment? Should this "living wage" increase because people live in a certain area, or should we pay them more because they have a bunch of kids? I want to know what a "living wage" really means.
A "decent wage" should not be lower than some reasonable factor relative to the highest wage in the company (note, I'm talking wages here, not dividends). "Reasonable" in this case is debatable and varies depending on who you ask, but vast majority of us agree that the 200x-500x rates that we see today are unreasonable. Personally, I think anything beyond 20x is unhealthy.
Please describe your moral code with respect to who should be giving what to whom in what situations, and who should be allowed to be on the receiving end.
Muslims has this nice term, "fard al-kifaya". This is a duty which is imposed on community as a whole - in other words, it is fulfilled when there are enough people that make it happen by whatever means necessary (and moral), and there is no personal individual obligation for every member of said community to participate. But if it is not fulfilled, then everyone should do what they reasonably can to contribute.
Same reasoning would seem to apply here - Americans as a society are certainly wealthy enough to eradicate poverty and homelessness, and it is therefore morally binding on them to do so. If, as fiscal conservatives and libertarians keep telling us, this is something that can be achieved entirely through private charity, then that's absolutely fine and government needs not be involved, but so far it hasn't happened.