In a bold and provocative stance, campaigner Charlotte Gage has ignited a fiery debate, calling for the complete removal of outdoor advertisements that adorn billboards and bus stops. Her argument raises concerns about the lack of public consultation on the content of these ads, as well as their contribution to light pollution and the promotion of unattainable or unnecessary products.
As the network director of the UK pressure group Adfree Cities, Gage spearheads the movement for a blanket ban on all corporate outdoor advertising. This ban would extend beyond billboards to include the sides of buses, the London Underground, and other rail and metro systems.
While some may view this aim as fanciful, examples from around the world prove that it is not beyond the realm of possibility. As far back as 2006, the sprawling Brazilian metropolis of Sao Paulo, the largest city in the southern hemisphere, enacted a ban on all forms of outdoor advertising. The city’s Clean City Law led to the removal of over 15,000 billboards and 300,000 oversized store signs.
Following suit in 2014, the French city of Grenoble implemented a similar ban. Assistant Mayor Lucile Lheureux explained that the city refused to subject its children to animated advertisements bombarding them from TV screens on the streets.
More recently, Amsterdam prohibited certain outdoor adverts last year, specifically those promoting petrol and diesel-fueled cars and air travel.
In March, Bristol City Council joined the fray by banning outdoor adverts for gambling firms, junk food, alcohol, and payday loans on advertising spaces it owns, including bus shelters and billboards. Norwich City Council is also exploring a comparable move following a favorable vote by its councilors last year.
Gage argues that while ethical concerns surround ads for junk food, payday loans, and high-carbon products, people would prefer to see community-oriented advertisements and art rather than the pervasive presence of logos and images from multi-billion dollar companies.
She emphasizes that the resistance to what she terms “sight pollution” is gaining momentum in the UK. Adfree Cities, established in 2020, now supports a network of eight community groups across the country, all united in their opposition to corporate outdoor advertising.
Unsurprisingly, the outdoor advertising industry, known as Out of Home (OOH), staunchly defends itself. Tim Lumb, representing the trade body Outsmart, highlights the significant financial contribution made by adverts through rent and business rates to transport authorities and local councils.
He asserts that in a free society, businesses have the right to advertise their products, and individuals are not the helpless and brainless automatons portrayed by Adfree Cities. Lumb argues that people make informed decisions about their spending choices, confident that advertising in the UK, including OOH, is properly regulated to ensure legality, decency, honesty, and truthfulness.
However, some anti-advertising groups have resorted to direct action, covering billboards and other outdoor adverts. Organizations such as Adblock Lambeth in London, Adblock Norwich, and the activist collective Brandalism have taken to the streets.
Brandalism, in particular, targets car, airline, and energy firm advertisements, employing tactics such as displaying fake billboard posters depicting cars trapped in traffic jams or altering legitimate posters to advocate for the banning of fossil fuels.
Brandalism spokesperson Tona Merriman, who uses a pseudonym, explains that their mission aims to challenge the legitimacy of corporate outdoor advertising and draw attention to its impact on social issues, mental health, well-being, the climate, and the communication of public space.
They view their actions as exercising the right to reply to corporate messaging, demanding that if these messages are allowed, the public should have the right to respond.
Lumb dismisses Brandalism’s approach as vandalism, illegal, and a public safety issue, with the costs of reposting and occasional repairs amounting to thousands of pounds each year. Nevertheless, experts like Dr. Nathan Critchlow, a research fellow at the Institute for Social Marketing and Health at the University of Stirling, argue that banning certain outdoor adverts could be beneficial.
Critchlow points to the positive impact of Transport for London’s ban on unhealthy commodity advertisements since 2019 across its entire network, which has prevented nearly 100,000 cases of obesity, according to a recent study.
Gage envisions a future where community art, murals, local projects, and rejuvenated green spaces replace the dominance of large-scale advertisements. It is a vision that challenges the status quo, igniting a battle for the streets and forcing society to reflect on the role and impact of outdoor advertising in our daily lives.
As the debate rages on, the fate of billboards and bus stop ads hangs in the balance. Will we succumb to the allure of corporate branding, or will we forge a new path, reclaiming our public spaces for the betterment of communities and the environment? Only time will tell how this clash of ideologies will shape the future of our streets.