Banksy on Advertising

March 8th, 2012 § 0 comments § permalink

I saw the words originally on David Allen Greens’ old Jack of Kent blog (don’t forget to check David’s new blog) and now, via to Tim, here is the video.

I whole heatedly agree…

Update 14/3/12:
Oh dear, Banksy

Chances are pretty good you’ve recently seen the “Banksy on Advertising” quote that begins, “People are taking the piss out of you everyday.” The passage is from Banksy’s 2004 book Cut It Out, and it presents the idea that if advertisers are going to fill your world with ads, you have every right to “take, re-arrange and re-use” those images without permission. The quote has been posted widely on Facebook, Tumblr, and Twitter, which is where I found it.

Here’s the interesting part:

Most of it is swiped directly from an essay I wrote in 1999, in the “Death, Phones, Scissors” issue of my zine Crap Hound. The first paragraph is more or less original, but the rest is mine, right down to the same words and phrases.

It’s hard to know how to feel about this. My first thought was, “Hey, Banksy reads Crap Hound!” Then, “What the fuck is going on?” Then, “Am I a real person? Am I actually happening?” And finally, “Am I a beautiful flower angel sent from heaven to inspire Banksy?”

As problems go, it’s a pretty nice one to have. I like Banksy’s art and ideas. I’m flattered he liked my writing and my sentiments, and I’m happy others liked the quote enough to post and forward. I’ve seen forums where people are debating the passage, including rebuttals from ad-agency twats. It’s on wikiquotes and a hundred blogs. My essay never would have had that impact on its own.

The downside is that Banksy’s name is always on it. Seeing my writing credited to someone else makes it a little less magical. Same with knowing that one day (maybe soon, since the issue in question is being reprinted), I’ll get to hear how I ripped off Banksy.

Read it all.

h/t @stebax

some different Messagespace stats.

May 9th, 2009 § 2 comments § permalink

There’s lots of stats on the Messagespace site. So I’ve just spent the evening looking through the list of Messagespace advert publishers according to Messagespace, all 35 of them, looking for more stats.

Just out of curiosity, like.

And what did I find?

On the 35 publishers there were:

  • 45 advert spaces
  • 36 visible adverts for Messagespace.
  • 1 publisher had 2 visible adverts served by Messagespace (advertising Messagespace) also had 10 other Messagespace codeblocks, but not showing ads on the page (I don’t know why, I didn’t look that closely)
  • 3 publishers listed on the Messagespace site had no adverts showing or any Messagespace code in the source code
  • the two magazines were advertising themselves
  • erm. That’s about it

I’m not going to do any percentages cos it’s late and I can’t be arsed now, but 36 ads for the ad server on 35 publishers with 46 ad spaces. What is it? Some sort of ad world Ponzi scheme*? How many of these 800,000 users** are gonna need the services of an internet advertising network?

The raw data (.xls) (it doesn’t tell you anything I haven’t already)

*I’m not implying there is something illegal is being done, but all those bloggers advertising the ad agency that’s serving them ads? Where is all this money coming from?
**A bit of a contentious issue is figures


May 8th, 2009 § 0 comments § permalink

Thinking of putting ads on your blog? Thinking of using Messagespace?


Do you really want to associate yourself with any of this stuff?

Phorms media suppression

March 5th, 2009 § 0 comments § permalink


Which? magazine, The Telegraph, Google/UK Press Association and Channel 4 have all pulled articles over Phorm Inc. (BT/Webwise) legal threats.

Which? magazine[1], an independent non-profit magazine published by the Consumers Association in the UK, carried out a survey of their readership on their responses to proposals by Phorm Inc.[2] to work in conjunction with Internet Service Providers in the UK, to use Deep Packet Inspection technology to intercept and profile their customers Internet communications to profile them in connection with behaviourally targeted advertising.

When the magazine was published Phorm Inc. immediately applied legal pressure to the Consumers Association. A follow up press release from CA notified publishers of Phorm’s objections to the survey and requested that they not publish articles based on the findings in the survey until matters had been resolved between CA and Phorm. Articles published online by the Press Association, the Daily Telegraph, and a video news report on Channel 4 were immediately taken offline, in response to this legal pressure, and a report in the online version of the Daily Mail was heavily edited to remove references to the Which? survey.


A more down to earth bus advert

February 3rd, 2009 § 0 comments § permalink

Never mind the lofty battle of the gods/non-gods, here something a little more downto earth…


Get yours here.

Via Tim, amongst the many.

2-0 to the atheists’

January 28th, 2009 § 2 comments § permalink

A pro-Christian advert that claims a vaccine to prevent cervical cancer in young women increases teenage infertility has been banned by the advertising watchdog.

Paid for by fundamentalist group Christian Voice, the advert in the New Statesman entitled, ‘Violent crime – sowing and reaping’, condemned government health policies, including giving a key cancer vaccine on the NHS, for focusing on curbing teenage pregnancy at the expense, the advert claimed, of teenage fertility.

“Every government initiative, including the HPV [Human papillomavirus] vaccine, will increase [teenage infertility], but as all the targets revolve around pregnancy, no-one in power knows how many young people they are making sterile and nobody cares”, it read.

But after receiving complaints that claims linking the HPV vaccine to teenage infertility could not be substantiated, the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) ruled the advert broke advertising rules and could not be republished

Try making ads that have a modicom of truth in it, instead of reasoning like…

Mr Green, national director of Christian Voice, said the availability of the vaccine “encourages people to just keep on fornicating, increasing promiscuity”, which he claims will then lead to an increase in teenage infertility.

Erm. It’s a vaccine against cervical cancer. It is not a contraceptive. It doesn’t protect against the clap or crabs, or stop a baby from being made.
In light of this new information, what is your problem with this vaccine? Or is your problem with two people doing what comes natural?

Mr Green said the ruling against Christian Voice represented “double standards.”

“On matters of faith and morality the ASA seems to make up the rules as it goes along,” he said.

Oh, boo hoo! It’s so unfair!

Warning: Contents may offend

January 21st, 2009 § 4 comments § permalink

The Advertising Standards Agency has decided on whether the ‘Athiest Bus’ has broken any rules.

And I would like to paraphrase here…

Fuck off you witless god-bothering cocks.

Oh, alright. Here’s what they really said

But the body concluded the adverts were unlikely to mislead or cause widespread offence and closed the case.


[ASA] said it assessed 326 complaints. Some claimed the wording was offensive to people who followed a religion.

326 people are offended by someone asking them if they’ve ever thought that there might not be a god. That’s what that line is saying

While some of the complaints claimed the adverts were offensive and denigrated people of faith, others challenged whether they were misleading because the advertiser would not be able to substantiate its claim that God “probably” did not exist.

What about all the ads and posters about god and church and stuff? According to their logic, they would have to substantiate the claim that there is probably a god. Which is just as hard.

And if one person can satisfactorily prove to me that there is a god beyond doubt, I will eat my blog.


Where Am I?

You are currently browsing entries tagged with advertising at Sim-O.