Transitway stations get makeover in the form of "station domination"

If you travelled through Hurdman or Lincoln Fields Stations in November, you may have noticed the large Rogers Communications ads covering Transitway shelters and stairs. Pattison Outdoor Advertising, the agency in charge of managing ads on OC Transpo property, says the "station domination" ad campaign will end this week on December 3rd. (There's a photo of Hurdman Station blanketed in Rogers advertisements in the link.) Station domination gives a company exclusive advertising rights to a particular station for a limited time.

A passenger tweeted a photo of a set of stairs that shows the Rogers promotions at Lincoln Fields Station:

Lots of new Rogers ads at Lincoln Fields station today. Looks like a big boys fight. pic.twitter.com/2FgxOXJhiZ
— M. A. (@asselsm) November 5, 2013

Last year, large lobsters were placed on top of bus stop shelters to promote P.E.I tourism. The conventional ads are the posters placed inside and outside buses, and on bus stop shelters. A single ad can wrap the entire exterior of buses. We are used to this on our transit system and wouldn't think twice. Now for the very first time in Ottawa, transit station shelters, walls, and floors can be covered in ads promoting the same message. Station domination is a common advertisement practice in subway and LRT stations across this country, but is generally met with public disapproval.

Some passengers may be annoyed with them, especially the telecom ones, while others may not noticed or simply don't care. When ads start to creep into areas that have remained ad-free, they usually don't go away. Station domination could appear in future Confederation Line stations, which will be far more spacious than the current Transitway stations and consequently, provide more opportunities to advertisers.

However, advertising on transit property is not a significant source of revenue for OC Transpo. Advertising on transit shelters and vehicles generates approximately $3.3 million per year, a relatively small amount compared to the $218.6 million revenue that the the transit agency estimates it will generate in 2014. It's roughly 1.5%. As for revenue from station domination, in 2011, the City projected it would bring $50,000 in revenue during the first year (2011) of implementation. It's nowhere near enough to stop annual fare hikes unfortunately.

Whether you like it or not, station domination is probably here to stay. There is concern about multiple ads of similarity interfering with wayfinding signage and confusing the casual user or tourist. And of course, station domination can turn a beautiful rail station into a marketing jungle. The first set of ads haven't created a public outcry, but it doesn't mean they are accepted either. Like the bus wraps, station domination should be applied sparingly.

In the Year 2012: Billboards and Screens

Yesterday, OC Transpo's new fare system was discussed. Today, we will look at advertising and customer information from OCTranspo's 2012 business plan.

Besides fares and government subsidies, OC Transpo generates a small fraction of its revenue from advertisements. The business plan states 1.5% of revenues, nearly $3 million annually, are from advertisements on buses, shelters and stop benches and the typical percentage for large North American transit authorities is 2%. OC Transpo plans on “using billboards on transit property to meet the needs of transit users and the general public.”

They can start with...anywhere on the Transitway. There are very few ads to be seen at transit stations, which has been puzzling since OC Transpo seems to be strapped for cash quite often and space does exist at most transit stations. Take Mackenzie King Bridge, for example. There are no ads to be seen on one of Ottawa's busiest transit stations. OC Transpo could make some significant revenue if they placed ads on the median fence facing the platform. As a passenger, I wouldn't mind more advertisements if it means not cutting service or better yet, improving service.

Google Street View of Mackenzie King Bridge looking east.

OC Transpo also says it will have less paper-based customer information and more electronic information this year. Besides the mobile website, there will be “next-bus arrival information delivered through fixed displays”, assuming this is real-time GPS information. When Open Data is released to the public by March 22, OC Transpo may not be in as much of a rush to provide the new displays. Still, they would benefit all customers, especially those without a smartphone, and one day, we won't have to look at those MS-DOS screens anymore.

Making money on transit station names

Something I've written about a couple of times in the past has been the idea of selling transit station naming rights to business or corporate sponsors as an alternative revenue stream for OC Transpo. It's generally met with resistance--having geographically-specific names makes for a much more intuitive and user-friendly transit system, so people heading down Bank Street can easily figure out they've got to get off the Transitway at Bank and Slater, for instance--but with recent news of Washington, D.C.'s Metropolitan Transportation Authority considering the measure to help offset funding shortages, it's obviously becoming a real option for public transit utilities.

Ottawa has funding shortages, too, as do just about every other transit utility in the world. Selling naming rights is always an option, although some might like to see it as a last-ditch one.

Philadelphia selling transit station names; should Ottawa?

A while back, I talked about using increased business partnerships, in the form of transit station name-sponsorships, as a possible way of increasing revenue for OC Transpo. With US-based transit agencies facing difficult budget cuts, the cities of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are considering heading down that road, too.

From Plan Philly (via Transport Politic):

Sports fan will soon be taking the subway to AT&T Station in order to see the Flyers, Eagles and Phillies.

SEPTA [Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority] is poised to sign a five-year agreement that would give AT&T the naming rights to the Pattison Ave. station on the Broad Street Line.

As part of the deal, SEPTA will change every reference to Pattison Station throughout the system and online.

The agreement was announced at a SEPTA Board committee hearing Thursday and will net SEPTA and Titan Outdoor LLC, which has a contract to manage advertising for the authority, more than $5 million. Of that, about two-thirds, or more than $3 million, will go to SEPTA. It’s part of ongoing efforts by SEPTA to raise revenue through non-traditional means.

In 2008 when the idea was entertained in Ottawa, there was a shortage of interest from potential sponsors (although it's unclear how much soliciting was done to attract them). It's difficult to say whether the potential windfall from such an arrangement would offset how annoying it would be to go to 'Rogers Station' instead of 'Bayview Station', or whichever the case may be.

Would anyone object to privatizing station names, or should we embrace any opportunity to raise funds for public transit?

City rejects "misleading" critical bus ads

The Ottawa Taxpayer Advocacy Group, a coalition of citizens concerned with transit workers' pay, have been blocked by Ottawa city staff from buying ads that are critical of them on OC Transpo buses.

According to the Ottawa Citizen, the group's initial draft for the e-mail was amended based on the city's criticisms, but was still rejected. The most recent proposal would have displayed the following text:

OC Transpo average wage (salary, wage, overtime, employer benefits, contributions & allowances): up 80 per cent in six years to $74,748. Fed up with rising taxes and bus fares? Join us...

The debate harkens back to some recent advertising controversies, including the Atheist Bus Campaign and Virgin Radio spots, but is markedly different based on the fact that it's directly critical of the city service it's running on, rather than simply controversial based on morals or values.

With regards to the proposed advertisement, the City had opposed the 'average wage' terminology, suggesting that it misleads those who view the advertisements into thinking that was the base salary, while it covers a bit more, according to City Treasurer Marian Simulik (quoted in the above-linked article):

"The figures represent total employer costs, including salaries as well as benefits, pension contributions, shift premium payments, post-employer benefits and other allowances."

The OTAG has taken their case to court, citing concerns that the City is attempting to "conceal the truth" by blocking their advertisements. Whenever a resolution comes, it should be interesting to see.

Political ads can run on public transit, says Supreme Court

Ottawa has had our fair share of transit-related advertising issues in the last short while; from the controversial Atheist Bus Campaign to Virgin Radio's 'Gods of Rock' advertisements, it's been a somewhat touchy subject. And it's come up again, although this time it's a Supreme Court decision on moves to block political advertising from two British Columbia transit utilities.

Long story short, the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority (TransLink) and British Columbia Transit (BC Transit) rejected a couple of ads based on concerns to offend riders who, according to the agencies, are "captive" to the messages presented in advertisements.

From The Globe and Mail:

An intervenor in the case – the B.C. Civil Liberties Association –
argued that political advertising lies at the heart of the Charter section that
protects freedom of expression.

“In a world where advertising is ubiquitous and appears in public spaces of every description ranging from billboards on private buildings to web pages of private search engines, every citizen has learned to distinguish between the message and the owner of the location where the message is delivered,” the BCCLA argued.

Surprisingly for a city as political as Ottawa, I don't personally recall much in the way of political advertising on OC Transpo buses. Do any readers remember specific instances of political advertisements in general, particularly those that were controversial?

What are your thoughts on the positions of the B.C. transit agencies, and the decision handed down by the Canadian Supreme Court?

Transit-based Yes God/No god debate rages

According to the CBC, a Calgary-based religious organization callign themselves God Exists has purchased bus ads in response to the Atheist Bus Campaign's "There's probably no god, now stop worrying and enjoy your life" publicity campaign. From the CBC story:

A group calling itself "God Exists" has purchased its own bus ads to counter the message of an atheist campaign currently running on Calgary buses.

The ads will be running on eight buses and two C-Trains for a month, starting Monday. They will carry the message: "God cares for everyone … even for those who say He doesn't exist!"

God Exists is a group supported by believers from several religions, with a Calgary Imam representing the group as a spokesperson and many Christians donating to pay the advertising tab with Calgary Transit.

Ottawa City Council recently reversed a decision by city staff, and the "No god" ads are slated to run on Ottawa's OC Transpo buses. It is unclear if an Ottawa-based "Yes God" group will form to counter those advertisements similar to Calgary's God Exists.

Unexpected positives: More money for public transit, and inter-faith cooperation. If only those trends could be extrapolated globally...

'Gods of Rock', another controversial OC ad campaign

Since Virgin Radio bought out The Bear radio station (106.9 fm) a few weeks ago, they've blitzed the city with their 'Gods of Rock' advertising campaign, featuring the slogan, "Lock up your daughters, the gods of rock are now in Ottawa' accompanied by photographs of pregnant young women. It's received its fair share of criticism.

Carleton University master's student Laura Sparling championed the campaign to have the ads pulled, stating her position in a letter to the editor of the Ottawa Citizen:

The city bus shelter ad originally drew my attention because I suspected it was promoting a social support service, with the photograph of a pregnant and troubled young woman between the ages of 16 and 22. Imagine my shock when I read the caption: "Lock up your daughters; the Gods of Rock are now in Ottawa." Excuse me.

While Virgin Radio attempts to create humour and irony by featuring ads of pregnant women, these ads are anything but funny. Through statements that openly promote female subjugation and condone the sexual objectification and ravaging of young women, this ad series sets the feminist struggle for ownership over our bodies and our choices back decades.

Sparling also started a Facebook group called 'Demand that Virgin Radio Remove Sexist Advertisements' to put pressure on the new radio station to pull their ads (although I can't seem to find the Facebook group), and she organized an online petition, which has just under 500 signatures as of writing, to demonstrate how citizens felt about the issue.

And apparently, the public pressure has worked. According to an article in the Citizen on Feb. 18, Virgin has voluntarily dropped their advertising campaign because, according to Pete Travers, program director at Virgin Radio Ottawa, "It was not our intention to offend anybody."

As recently as Monday, Feb. 23, there were still the ads on billboards on Sparks Street. Still, the decision by Virgin to pull the ads demonstrates that sometimes corporations will cave to public pressure.

What I want to know is how a radio station is going to impregnate my daughter.

Is council micro-managing public transit in Ottawa?

According to the Ottawa Citizen, Ottawa city councillors have taken issue with the decision of OC Transpo management that the Atheist Bus Campaign's advertisement was rejected (more about that here), and have decided to have a full debate on the decision in city council. The city's transit committee voted on the issue, but because the vote was a tie Bay Ward Councillor Alex Cullen vowed that he would bring the issue to full council vote next week.

Although the Atheist Bus Campaign is a controversial issue on its own, the decision by some councillors, including Cullen, to debate an issue of the day-to-day management of OC Transpo brings to mind a grander discussion of whether or not Ottawa city councillors are micro-managing the city's transit utility, OC Transpo.

Past decisions have also arguably bordered around micro-management from council. When dealing with transit plans, budget cuts, and virtually any decision made with regards to OC Transpo, councillors have seemingly debated everything from grander visions to the most minute details of implementation of the plan. This degree of political involvement does not only politicize the decisions made, but it also serves to frustrate citizens--myself included--trying to keep up-to-date on all the technical issues being debated by council, a phenomenon that's been referred to as 'transit fatigue'. While it's valuable for our elected officials to have input in the direction of OC Transpo, how much is too much involvement?

So I pose a few discussion questions to readers:

1. Do you think councillors are micromanaging OC Transpo?
2. How much council involvement is too much in OC Transpo?
3. Could council's time be better spent dealing with larger issues, and leaving technicalities to OC Transpo staff?
4. Would establishing an arm's-length transit commission solve this problem, if you do think it's a problem?

Please feel free to answer any or all of the questions in the 'comments' section.

"No God" bus ads rejected by OC Transpo

The Ottawa Citizen tells us that the bus-based atheist ad campaign that was on its way to Ottawa recently had its bid to place ads on buses turned down by OC Transpo.

The city has rejected a “no god” bus ad campaign, a move that organizers hope will serve as a rallying cry for proponents of free speech across the country.

“We need to get people as offended about censorship as they are by the ad,” said Justin Trottier, president of the Freethought Association of Canada.

Trottier's group was hoping to use Ottawa buses as part of a larger campaign to promote “principles of various world views.”

And why were the ads rejected?

The decision was made based on a subsection of the transit advertising policy which says that “religious advertising which promotes a specific ideology, ethic, point of view, policy or action, which in the opinion of the City might be deemed prejudicial to other religious groups or offensive to users of the transit system is not permitted. Religious advertising will be permitted if the information is designed to promote a specific meeting, gathering or event and the location, date and time of said event.”

No one from OC Transpo was available for comment Saturday.

So, readers ... Is rejecting the ads censorship?

Atheist Bus Campaign is Ottawa bound

The Atheist Bus Campaign, a public transit advertising initiative started in London that has been adopted by the Toronto-based Freethought Association of Canada, is hoping to come to OC Transpo buses, according to the Centretown News.

The Campaign, which we've discussed on TransitOttawa.ca before, purchases advertising on public transit with the slogan, "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and get on with your life." It already has ads on buses in Toronto and Calgary, but was rejected by Halifax's transit authority. It remains to be seen if this could be rejected by OC Transpo officials.

What do readers think about the possibility of the campaign coming to Ottawa?

How far is too far with advertising content?

Photo from The Guardian, used without permission
A few months ago, I wrote an article about the form advertising takes in public spaces (particularly public trasit spaces), and posed the question of how far is too far with advertising media. A similar controversy has come up recently in England, except it's not the form of public-transit advertising that is at issue: It's the content.

It's called the Atheist Bus Campaign, and it started when Ariane Sherine mentioned, almost in passing, her consternation with a London-based JesusSaid.org-sponsored bus poster campaign that had Biblical quotations such as "When the son of man comes, will he find faith on the earth?" in a blog post on The Guardian's web site. Sherine wrote a convincing argument (check it out, I recommend reading her post), and the gist is largely summed up in the following paragraph:

"Now, if I wanted to run a bus ad saying "Beware – there is a giant lion from London Zoo on the loose!" or "The 'bits' in orange juice aren't orange but plastic – don't drink them or you'll die!" I think I might be asked to show my working and back up my claims. But apparently you don't need evidence to run an ad suggesting we'll all face the ire of the son of man when he comes, then link to a website advocating endless pain for atheists."

Sherine suggested that "if there are 4,680 atheists reading this and we all contribute £5, it's possible that we can fund a much-needed atheist London bus ad with the slogan: 'There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and get on with your life.'" The response was great, including plenty of celebrity donations to the campaign, and after a London-based launch of the campaign, it moved nationwide throughout England last week. And it hasn't been without backlash; according to The Guardian, the British Advertising Standards Authority has received almost 150 complaints regarding the Atheist Bus Campaign.

Whatever your stance on the issues surrounding this particular controversy, it raises a very interesting debate about personal expression (particularly religious expression) in public spaces, and whether it has a place. OC Transpo has had some Christian advertisements, but they haven't been as aggressive as the JesusSaid.org campaign, and haven't prompted any notable public backlash.

What do you think: How far is too far with advertising content?

ADDENDUM (Jan. 17, 2009): The Atheist Bus Campaign was deemed "too far" in Rome, after receiving stron opposition from Conservative political powers, according to a report in the Globe and Mail:

ROME — Italian atheists have lost a bid to run “no God” advertisements on city buses after strong opposition from conservative political parties, a member of the group said on Saturday.

The ads reading “The bad news is that God doesn't exist. The good news is that you don't need him” were to have been put on buses in the northern city of Genoa, home to the Catholic cardinal who is head of the Italian Bishops Conference.

The mock-up was ready and the contract was sent to the group for signing but the publicity agency changed its mind and said the ad could not run it because it violated an ethics in advertising code, according to Giorgio Villella of The Italian Union of Atheists and Rationalist Agnostics (UAAR).

How far is too far with advertising?

An article in the New York Times explored the many forms advertising can take within public transit, from standard bus and shelter posters (as Ottawa has lots of) through to just about every inch of physical space in a transit station, including 'video' ads on the walls of subway tunnels. These tunnel ads are described in the Times story:

"Starting next spring with the 42nd Street-Times Square shuttle, passengers will see advertising outside the windows as the train travels between stations. The messages will look rather like jumpy 15-second TV ads.

"The tunnel advertising is part of an ambitious Metropolitan Transportation Authority plan to convert much of its real estate into advertising space. In addition to the tunnel ads, it will sell space on turnstiles, digital screens inside stations, projections against subway station walls, and panels on the outside of subway cars."

Personally, I don't really like advertising in public spaces, but I understand that the money it can bring in comes in handy when budgeting--thus balancing the detriment of disturbing mental and visual peace with a benefit of (hypothetically) lower fares for customers. However, there seems an obvious difference between relatively benign poster or billboard ads and dynamic, illuminated, moving-picture advertisements which throws a wrench into the balancing act.

How do readers feel about advertising generally in public spaces, and specifically in public transit spaces?