Why would helping someone in need be a morally bad thing to do?
Becuase it’s degrading? just because they’re homeless doesn’t mean they don’t deserve respect as a human being, not as an advertising medium.
Jan
16 Apr 06
How is holding a sign more degrading than begging people for change?
Tory
16 Apr 06
People get paid minimum wage to stand outside of car washes in ape suits, is that degrading?
David
16 Apr 06
It’s not a herd, it’s a flock.
Joe
16 Apr 06
> is that degrading?
Yep. But then it’s better than starving.
Rad S.
16 Apr 06
Is this really any different than what we humans do voluntarily? :)
Brian
16 Apr 06
Hopefully they aren’t the in-room entertainment as well.
I'm With Stupid
16 Apr 06
“Becuase it�s degrading? just because they�re homeless doesn�t mean they don�t deserve respect as a human being, not as an advertising medium.”
So, what you are saying is that it is somehow less degrading to be standing around holding a sign which says, “Will Work For Food”, than to be standing around holding a sign working for food? Insightful.
So, what you are saying is that it is somehow less degrading to be standing around holding a sign which says, �Will Work For Food�, than to be standing around holding a sign working for food?
Hiring someone to hold a sign all day isn’t degrading, it’s an honest dollar, I agree. But by only targeting the lowest class on the economic scale and calling it ‘bumvertising’ is taking advantage of their situation. The website has a total of four homeless guys that are enrolled. I wonder what the other millions thing?
…Or maybe it’s all just all just a viral advertising from pokerfacebook, whose name is plastered all over the bumveritising website.
Sam
17 Apr 06
damnit… thing = thinK
JP
17 Apr 06
and calling it �bumvertising� is taking advantage of their situation.
Once again, how is helping someone taking advantage of their situation? Is the “bum” better off before or after I hire him to advertise for me? So who exactly is getting taken advantage of? Doh!
Hiring the homeless to hold advertising signs isn’t inherently morally wrong at all. If you pay them less than a living wage, however, it is, because you’re taking advantage of their desperation. If you pay them to hold a sign which makes fun of them for being homeless (with the word “bumvertising” or the like on the sign), it is also morally wrong. Morally wrong in the same way that it’s morally wrong to walk up to a homeless guy and just insult him for the fun of it: It’s not illegal, and in fact is perfectly acceptable under the First Amendment. But it’s still wrong. This is pretty simple stuff.
Joe
17 Apr 06
Please tell me, guys, you did not take Bumvertising.com for real.
Hey folks, I thought s37 readers were intelligent…
Joe, it’s a hypothetical discussion. Doesn’t matter if it’s real or not. I haven’t looked at the site, but I’ve seen some unethical/jerkoff marketing techniques that far exceed bumvertising in crass-ness, so it’s not an entirely pointless topic, joke or not.
Joe
17 Apr 06
Ah, I see.
Despite the website mentioned being a marketing gag I agree with your point on the topic in general.
As long as we do not discuss whether it is okay to sell cats put into bottles… ;-)
hm
17 Apr 06
As long as we do not discuss whether it is okay to sell cats put into bottles� ;-)
It depends, are they adorable kittens or fat old cats? Cuz I could get behind the latter.
Joe
17 Apr 06
> If you pay them less than a living wage
Supply and demand, despite the imaginary utopia socialists live in. >$0 is better than $0.
Supply and demand, despite the imaginary utopia socialists live in. >$0 is better than $0.
Most make $150-200 a day standing on the side of the street holding the “Please help” sign. Figure no taxes, or benfits to pay for, and the fact that most eat for free…thats more than most of america makes. So who is being taken advantage of?
Every single bum I have talked to chose to live that lifestyle, and wouldn’t change a thing. Yes, I do frequently talk to homeless guys, and before you thinking I am making asshat comments, I have slept on park benches, and begged for change.
Andy
17 Apr 06
Uhm, it’s not a totally hypothetical situation. They tried this with homeless people a few years back in Amsterdam. They got very warm jackets (Goretex like) for free in the winter, and the jackets were paid by advertising printed on their back.
I don’t know if it is a coincidence that the above picture is also from the Netherlands :-) The target audience of these ads are mostly train passengers passing along.
Too ba-a-a-a-ad it was cut short by the mayor of the little town: they needed a permit to advertise next to roads. As this is a fairly new way of advertising, there werent any rules for it set :-)
I think The Netherlands is such a inventive country because of all the rules we have to “live with”…
Andrea
18 Apr 06
My two cents on the “bumvertising” argument:
It’s taking advantage of people if you force them to hold signs for you and compensate them at less than a fair minimum wage.
To insinuate that because it’s a menial position it’s demeaning is like saying it’s wrong to offer people without high school educations jobs as sanitation workers. There are jobs in society some of us would feel are “beneath” us - but that doesn’t mean everyone feels the same way.
A lot of things get done in this world because people step up and do the things other people don’t want to do. Don’t insult them by saying they’re demeaning themselves to make an honest living.
If you’re given a choice to take a “demeaning” job and you take it, who’s really at fault - the people who offered you the job or you, for taking it?
Joe
18 Apr 06
All jobs can be demeaning. One type of people I can’t stand are those who feel they’re above doing menial work.
preston wood
18 Apr 06
at least they aren’t ads for a company that sells lamb chops or roasts…..
Joe
19 Apr 06
Heh. That’d be funny in an ironic way. Or cows wearing “Eat Beef” ads.
36 comments so far (Jump to latest)
Robbert Cuijpers 16 Apr 06
This is a new way to advertise in The Netherlands next to highways. Because regular billboards are forbidden, and this is (still) permitted.
Chris 16 Apr 06
Hilarious. Brilliant. PETA?
Fri�rik M�r 16 Apr 06
Heh, that’s not animal cruelty � keeps the sheep warm after they’ve been shaved.
Spike 16 Apr 06
I liked what I saw of that hobo advertising website a while back - giving hobos food and clothes in exchange for holding advertising banners.
I’m deliberating whether or not it is bad morally for a forthcoming project of my own :\
JP 16 Apr 06
Why would helping someone in need be a morally bad thing to do?
Joe 16 Apr 06
PETA’s busy buying their own billboard ads. Well, trying to anyway.
http://www.9news.com/acm_news.aspx?OSGNAME=KUSA&IKOBJECTID=9f8ff61a-0abe-421a-00d3-9c00313967b3&TEMPLATEID=0c76dce6-ac1f-02d8-0047-c589c01ca7bf
Sam 16 Apr 06
Why would helping someone in need be a morally bad thing to do?
Becuase it’s degrading? just because they’re homeless doesn’t mean they don’t deserve respect as a human being, not as an advertising medium.
Jan 16 Apr 06
How is holding a sign more degrading than begging people for change?
Tory 16 Apr 06
People get paid minimum wage to stand outside of car washes in ape suits, is that degrading?
David 16 Apr 06
It’s not a herd, it’s a flock.
Joe 16 Apr 06
> is that degrading?
Yep. But then it’s better than starving.
Rad S. 16 Apr 06
Is this really any different than what we humans do voluntarily? :)
Brian 16 Apr 06
Hopefully they aren’t the in-room entertainment as well.
I'm With Stupid 16 Apr 06
“Becuase it�s degrading? just because they�re homeless doesn�t mean they don�t deserve respect as a human being, not as an advertising medium.”
So, what you are saying is that it is somehow less degrading to be standing around holding a sign which says, “Will Work For Food”, than to be standing around holding a sign working for food? Insightful.
Dale Cruse 16 Apr 06
That’s ba-a-a-ad.
Brian 16 Apr 06
Actually, you should’ve said, “Eeeewwwweeee”
Chris H. 16 Apr 06
Very good
Michael 17 Apr 06
Btw. I will code some rails for food. I mean it.
Sam 17 Apr 06
So, what you are saying is that it is somehow less degrading to be standing around holding a sign which says, �Will Work For Food�, than to be standing around holding a sign working for food?
Hiring someone to hold a sign all day isn’t degrading, it’s an honest dollar, I agree. But by only targeting the lowest class on the economic scale and calling it ‘bumvertising’ is taking advantage of their situation. The website has a total of four homeless guys that are enrolled. I wonder what the other millions thing?
…Or maybe it’s all just all just a viral advertising from pokerfacebook, whose name is plastered all over the bumveritising website.
Sam 17 Apr 06
damnit… thing = thinK
JP 17 Apr 06
and calling it �bumvertising� is taking advantage of their situation.
Once again, how is helping someone taking advantage of their situation? Is the “bum” better off before or after I hire him to advertise for me? So who exactly is getting taken advantage of? Doh!
Joe 17 Apr 06
Bumvertising is vastly better than Bum Fights.
Christopher Fahey 17 Apr 06
Hiring the homeless to hold advertising signs isn’t inherently morally wrong at all. If you pay them less than a living wage, however, it is, because you’re taking advantage of their desperation. If you pay them to hold a sign which makes fun of them for being homeless (with the word “bumvertising” or the like on the sign), it is also morally wrong. Morally wrong in the same way that it’s morally wrong to walk up to a homeless guy and just insult him for the fun of it: It’s not illegal, and in fact is perfectly acceptable under the First Amendment. But it’s still wrong. This is pretty simple stuff.
Joe 17 Apr 06
Please tell me, guys, you did not take Bumvertising.com for real.
Hey folks, I thought s37 readers were intelligent…
Christopher Fahey 17 Apr 06
Joe, it’s a hypothetical discussion. Doesn’t matter if it’s real or not. I haven’t looked at the site, but I’ve seen some unethical/jerkoff marketing techniques that far exceed bumvertising in crass-ness, so it’s not an entirely pointless topic, joke or not.
Joe 17 Apr 06
Ah, I see.
Despite the website mentioned being a marketing gag I agree with your point on the topic in general.
As long as we do not discuss whether it is okay to sell cats put into bottles… ;-)
hm 17 Apr 06
As long as we do not discuss whether it is okay to sell cats put into bottles� ;-)
It depends, are they adorable kittens or fat old cats? Cuz I could get behind the latter.
Joe 17 Apr 06
> If you pay them less than a living wage
Supply and demand, despite the imaginary utopia socialists live in. >$0 is better than $0.
john 17 Apr 06
Supply and demand, despite the imaginary utopia socialists live in. >$0 is better than $0.
Most make $150-200 a day standing on the side of the street holding the “Please help” sign. Figure no taxes, or benfits to pay for, and the fact that most eat for free…thats more than most of america makes. So who is being taken advantage of?
Every single bum I have talked to chose to live that lifestyle, and wouldn’t change a thing. Yes, I do frequently talk to homeless guys, and before you thinking I am making asshat comments, I have slept on park benches, and begged for change.
Andy 17 Apr 06
Uhm, it’s not a totally hypothetical situation. They tried this with homeless people a few years back in Amsterdam. They got very warm jackets (Goretex like) for free in the winter, and the jackets were paid by advertising printed on their back.
I don’t know if it is a coincidence that the above picture is also from the Netherlands :-) The target audience of these ads are mostly train passengers passing along.
SvP 18 Apr 06
Too ba-a-a-a-ad it was cut short by the mayor of the little town: they needed a permit to advertise next to roads. As this is a fairly new way of advertising, there werent any rules for it set :-)
I think The Netherlands is such a inventive country because of all the rules we have to “live with”…
Andrea 18 Apr 06
My two cents on the “bumvertising” argument:
It’s taking advantage of people if you force them to hold signs for you and compensate them at less than a fair minimum wage.
To insinuate that because it’s a menial position it’s demeaning is like saying it’s wrong to offer people without high school educations jobs as sanitation workers. There are jobs in society some of us would feel are “beneath” us - but that doesn’t mean everyone feels the same way.
A lot of things get done in this world because people step up and do the things other people don’t want to do. Don’t insult them by saying they’re demeaning themselves to make an honest living.
If you’re given a choice to take a “demeaning” job and you take it, who’s really at fault - the people who offered you the job or you, for taking it?
Joe 18 Apr 06
All jobs can be demeaning. One type of people I can’t stand are those who feel they’re above doing menial work.
preston wood 18 Apr 06
at least they aren’t ads for a company that sells lamb chops or roasts…..
Joe 19 Apr 06
Heh. That’d be funny in an ironic way. Or cows wearing “Eat Beef” ads.