Illegal billboards proliferating in vacant storefronts
By: Brent Begin
Examiner Staff Writer
May 21, 2009
 |
| City officials say this billboard in a vacant storefront is illegal, and they are working to have it removed. (Cindy Chew/The Examiner) |
SAN FRANCISCO — A bright-blue advertisement for Intel popped up on the shuttered storefront that used to be a Disney Store on Post Street in Union Square, becoming one of many vacant buildings that has been illegally plastered with promotions.
Turning empty storefronts in San Francisco into advertisements is against city law and bothersome to anti-billboard advocates, but this latest trend in marketing is catching on.
Companies are paying big money to advertisers to convince the owners of vacant properties to stick what amounts to a billboard in their store windows. The practice is illegal under San Francisco’s strict codes governing advertising. But when it comes to getting a corporate message across in a city overwhelmingly against the “blight” of billboards, those rules are often thrown out the window.
In March 2002, 79 percent of voters approved Proposition G, which made it illegal to put up more general advertising signs. In January 2008, the Planning Department began counting every billboard in The City, sending out notices to those that lacked a permit.
As of April of this year, the department had processed more than half the 1,532 billboards found throughout San Francisco. Of those, about 43 percent were deemed illegal.
One that’s illegal is the bright-blue Intel advertisement on the former Disney Store. Two Pepsi ads were already taken down at 425 Mason St. and 290 Sutter St.
City officials, including officials from the Planning Department and City Attorney’s Office, are working to fine the culprits — often referred to as guerrilla marketers — along with those responsible for the hundreds of illegal billboards identified every year.
Daniel Sider, who manages a team of three Planning Department employees dedicated to identifying illegal advertising, said the building owner was clearly violating the planning code and The City took action.
“If you’re at a Disney Store and it says, ‘Buy your Mickey Mouse here,’ that’s not against the code,” he said. “But advertising for something available off-site clearly violates the code.”
Before The City can begin levying fines, it has to field a complaint and then post a notice that the illegal billboard is a nuisance. After that, there is a 30-day grace period before The City can levy fines, which range from $100 a day for the smallest advertisements to $2,500 a day for the largest (more than 500 square feet).
One San Francisco-based advertising firm recently told The New York Times that the proliferation of vacant storefronts on major thoroughfares has provided key places to place advertising.
Peter Sherman, the managing director of BBDO West, San Francisco, which is part of the Omnicon Group, told The Times that his company is running ads for Conservation International in storefronts in San Francisco, along with Berkeley and New York.
Sherman also said that the storefront advertising is a fraction of the cost of regular billboards.
The City’s largest advertisers, however, are not happy about the latest marketing techniques. CBS Outdoor, for instance, owns a large share of the billboards that are considered legal and is supportive of The City’s efforts against illegal operators, according to Ryan Brooks, a vice president at the company.
“All we ask is that The City is aggressive and fair,” he said. “It hurts people who play by the rules when they raise fines.”
But Subodh Bhat, a professor of advertising effects and marketing strategy at San Francisco State University, said that as a matter of public policy, the ads may be bothersome, but if customers do not mind, ad companies will continue.
“The average customer, they don’t know and I’m not sure they even care,” he said. “As long as it’s not ugly or defacing a public monument, something that customers value, then the average customer is not even going to blink.”
Don’t look down — that ‘graffiti’ is advertising
Even though it’s only advertising disguised as graffiti, it’s still illegal.
The City has gathered about $300,000 in settlements from companies that have illegally marketed their products in San Francisco, but that has not stemmed the tide.
The latest campaign for the Hollywood blockbuster “Angels and Demons” has some San Francisco residents screaming mad. The title of the movie is stenciled in busy locales like Dolores Park, The Embarcadero and Market Street with a chalklike substance that could last for weeks.
The movie stenciling follows other notable incidents.
In 2001, in probably the most widespread campaign, Ogilvy & Mather Inc. handled the nationwide rollout of a new IBM operating system. “Peace, Love & Linux” appeared throughout The City, costing IBM an apology and more than $100,000.
Four years later, NBC Universal paid The City $103,000 for defacing sidewalks with advertisements for the now-defunct television show “The 4400.”
In 2007, several battery-powered signs were placed throughout San Francisco. That campaign, however, backfired when it caused a bomb scare in the Boston area. Cartoon Network and Turner Broadcasting, creators of the cartoon “Aqua Teen Hunger Force,” paid $85,000 to San Francisco. Now, The City is going after Sony Pictures, which produced “Angels and Demons.”
City attorney spokesman Matt Dorsey said the office is still investigating the extent of the graffiti and plans to contact the company’s legal department.
“The city attorney takes an extremely dim view of guerrilla-marketing tactics that deface public property in San Francisco,” he said.
San Francisco Beautiful, an organization that lobbied to pass The City’s strict advertising laws, is not happy either.
“You’re seeing it coming up on empty storefronts, on sidewalks, anywhere the eye goes, that’s where they show up. It’s up to The City to step up and enforce this,” said Sheila Kolenc, operations and communications director of the organization.
But for companies that spend millions on billboard campaigns and other tactics to have a visible presence, sometimes breaking the law is not as important as targeting a customer, said San Francisco State University marketing professor Subodh Bhat.
“There’s a tremendous amount of savings,” he said. “People have become completely blasé about normal advertising and the company has to reach them in some way.”
Tackling S.F. signage
The Planning Department has been cataloging billboards since January 2008.
1,532
Billboards identified in The City
853
Processed by Planning Department
270
Legal and properly identified
207
Illegal and removed
161
Illegal but not removed
104
Legal that have since been properly labeled
91
Legal but not properly labeled
4
Planning Department employees, plus one manager, assigned to billboard enforcement
$100
Minimum fine for an illegal billboard per day
$2,500
Maximum fine for an illegal billboard per day
30
Length, in days, of grace period before fines kick in
Source: Planning Department
bbegin@sfexaminer.com
