Follow the herd Jason 16 Apr 2006

36 comments Latest by John

sheep advertising

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?

Friðrik Már 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?

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.

Post a comment

(Basic HTML is allowed)

NOTE: We'd rather not moderate, but off-topic, blatantly inflammatory, or otherwise inappropriate or vapid comments may be removed. Repeat offenders will be banned from commenting. Let's add value. Thank you.