I can’t help but notice how much assumption and spin is heaped into that comment. FWIW, neither of those states is in the bottom ten by per-capita GDP. Is your

I can’t help but notice how much assumption and spin is heaped into that comment. FWIW, neither of those states is in the bottom ten by per-capita GDP. Is your claim based on absolute GDP, and if so, why? Most of the states that actually are in the bottom ten by per-capita GDP have a lot of billboard advertising, so how do you rationalize your suggestion that outdoor advertising is linked to economic activity? Texas and California are both in the list of states least friendly to billboards, and they are the top 2 states in absolute GDP. https://billboardinsider.com/the-8-least-friendly-states-toward-out-of-home-advertising/ https://billboardinsider.com/the-8-least-friendly-states-tow... > it’s not like they really are giving up much with not having advertisements. What a strange statement. I’m sure you’re aware that ranking states by GDP says nothing about their absolute economic measures. You cannot claim that being low in the rankings leaves them with nothing to lose, that’s just poor logic. The per-capita GDP of Vertmont is about $63k per year, while Colorado (which is in the top 10) for example is $82k per year.