Sao Paulo: A city with no outdoor advertisements (2013)

Re:Sao Paulo: A city with no outdoor advertisements (2013) by rbanffy on Tuesday July 04, 2023 @10:26AM (#36587159)

None at all is still better. When you allow some, you’ll have people gaming the rules and finding loopholes. A clear ban is easier to enforce.

As for making the city ugly, I grew up there and I’m the first to say it’s an acquired taste. You get used to the grit, to the harshness and the layers of architectural history. Visiting the city centre is always some sort of a discovery.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sao Paulo: A city with no outdoor advertisements (2013) by endisneigh on Tuesday July 04, 2023 @10:26AM (#36587169)

None is not necessarily or inherently better because advertising generates revenue. You would need to weigh the revenue vs. the nebulous value of "no advertising". Given that there exists stores in Sao Paulo, you still see "advertisements", just not on billboards.

You speak of the grit - said grit could be improved with government efforts funded by... advertisements in part.

I suppose this lack of nuanced thinking is why the war on drugs is still a thing. There are many bad things that you can try to unliterally ban. There are tradeoffs.

[ Parent | on HN ]