4 ms·

I disagree with this move. Though advertising is certainly excessive in many cities. They should've kept it, restrict what can be advertised (e.g. no alcohol, d

I disagree with this move. Though advertising is certainly excessive in many cities. They should've kept it, restrict what can be advertised (e.g. no alcohol, drugs, or things that the city deems 'bad') and used the revenue to beautify the city. In any case, Sao Paulo did have too many ads which restricted the view. At the very least that should've been resolved. Though I suppose given HN people will applaud this move which is ironic given that we all are basically on a marketing forum for Y Combinator.

bigbillheck 3y ago
> used the revenue While a 100% tax on advertising revenue is certainly a good start, I don't think the city was seeing any of that money.
rbanffy 3y ago
I lived there. The adverts were making the city ugly. It was a massive improvement when we got rid of them.
- endisneigh 3y ago
  Luckily there is something in between "ugly advertisements" and "no advertisements at all"
  - rbanffy 3y ago
    None at all is still better. When you allow some, you’ll have people gaming the rules and finding loopholes. A clear ban is easier to enforce. As for making the city ugly, I grew up there and I’m the first to say it’s an acquired taste. You get used to the grit, to the harshness and the layers of architectural history. Visiting the city centre is always some sort of a discovery.
    - endisneigh 3y ago
      None is not necessarily or inherently better because advertising generates revenue. You would need to weigh the revenue vs. the nebulous value of "no advertising". Given that there exists stores in Sao Paulo, you still see "advertisements", just not on billboards. You speak of the grit - said grit could be improved with government efforts funded by... advertisements in part. I suppose this lack of nuanced thinking is why the war on drugs is still a thing. There are many bad things that you can try to unliterally ban. There are tradeoffs.
  - vc9999 3y ago
    Luckily this is just an article explaining one side of the law, and it's from 2001. Obviously, there are advertisements, but not on large billboards across the city. Sometimes, I feel like this site is no different from a Twitter thread. There are so many uninformed people making comments about things they have no clue about.
    - endisneigh 3y ago
      I'm talking about the billboards and other outdoor ads as referenced in the article. What are you talking about? > In September 2006, the mayor of São Paulo passed the so-called “Clean City Law" that outlawed the use of all outdoor advertisements, including on billboards, transit, and in front of stores. Within a year, 15,000 billboards were taken down and store signs had to be shrunk so as not to violate the new law. Outdoor video screens and ads on buses were stripped. Even pamphleteering in public spaces has been made illegal. Nearly $8 million in fines were issued to cleanse São Paulo of the blight on its landscape. Seven years on, the world's fourth-largest metropolis and South America’s most important city remains free of visual clutter and eye sore that plagues the majority of cities around the world. You're right though. Uninformed people who don't read the article are annoying. I'm not even for ads. It's simply that there's a way to do outdoor ads that doesn't ruin the city.
- 0xf00ff00f 3y ago
  I still live here. I remember how it was before 2007 and the city is now uglier than ever. Seoul has outdoor ads everywhere and looks much nicer. Ads could have been a source of revenue for the city. Crazy to waste time and effort on stuff like this when the city has much bigger problems.

bigbillheck 3y ago

> used the revenue While a 100% tax on advertising revenue is certainly a good start, I don't think the city was seeing any of that money.

rbanffy 3y ago

I lived there. The adverts were making the city ugly. It was a massive improvement when we got rid of them.

endisneigh 3y ago
Luckily there is something in between "ugly advertisements" and "no advertisements at all"
- rbanffy 3y ago
  None at all is still better. When you allow some, you’ll have people gaming the rules and finding loopholes. A clear ban is easier to enforce. As for making the city ugly, I grew up there and I’m the first to say it’s an acquired taste. You get used to the grit, to the harshness and the layers of architectural history. Visiting the city centre is always some sort of a discovery.
  - endisneigh 3y ago
    None is not necessarily or inherently better because advertising generates revenue. You would need to weigh the revenue vs. the nebulous value of "no advertising". Given that there exists stores in Sao Paulo, you still see "advertisements", just not on billboards. You speak of the grit - said grit could be improved with government efforts funded by... advertisements in part. I suppose this lack of nuanced thinking is why the war on drugs is still a thing. There are many bad things that you can try to unliterally ban. There are tradeoffs.
- vc9999 3y ago
  Luckily this is just an article explaining one side of the law, and it's from 2001. Obviously, there are advertisements, but not on large billboards across the city. Sometimes, I feel like this site is no different from a Twitter thread. There are so many uninformed people making comments about things they have no clue about.
  - endisneigh 3y ago
    I'm talking about the billboards and other outdoor ads as referenced in the article. What are you talking about? > In September 2006, the mayor of São Paulo passed the so-called “Clean City Law" that outlawed the use of all outdoor advertisements, including on billboards, transit, and in front of stores. Within a year, 15,000 billboards were taken down and store signs had to be shrunk so as not to violate the new law. Outdoor video screens and ads on buses were stripped. Even pamphleteering in public spaces has been made illegal. Nearly $8 million in fines were issued to cleanse São Paulo of the blight on its landscape. Seven years on, the world's fourth-largest metropolis and South America’s most important city remains free of visual clutter and eye sore that plagues the majority of cities around the world. You're right though. Uninformed people who don't read the article are annoying. I'm not even for ads. It's simply that there's a way to do outdoor ads that doesn't ruin the city.
0xf00ff00f 3y ago
I still live here. I remember how it was before 2007 and the city is now uglier than ever. Seoul has outdoor ads everywhere and looks much nicer. Ads could have been a source of revenue for the city. Crazy to waste time and effort on stuff like this when the city has much bigger problems.