5 ms·

It's not a good trade, there shouldn't be a monopoly on public ads, local businesses should be able to reach consumers without having to go through a monopolist

It's not a good trade, there shouldn't be a monopoly on public ads, local businesses should be able to reach consumers without having to go through a monopolist that captures all of the value.

ponector 3y ago
The alternative is to not have a cheap popular bikeshare system. Also with monopolist it is really easy to keep some standards, quality of the ads.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  False dichotomy. The alternative is to have a cheap popular bikeshare system supported by taxes. [Edit to reply to okr, because I'm rate-limited: Well, then, make the users of the bikes pay the full cost of the bike service. As it is, you're pushing ads in everyone's face, whether or not they use the bike. Also no thanks.]
  - okr 3y ago
    So, instead of paying my money for a bike as a choice, a monopolist takes money from everyone. Very funny, but no thanks, i take Ads anytime over that.
    - j_maffe 3y ago
      The collective community ends up paying a lot more in quality of life with these ads up. Also, ads are the primary way to get the lower economic classes to give their money to the rich.
      - okr 3y ago
        You give money to get goods. What is wrong about that?
        AnimalMuppet 3y ago
        You give money you can't really afford to give in order to get goods that you don't really need. You do so because advertisers are skilled professionals, and are better at manipulating you than you are at not being manipulated. And they have put themselves in places where you cannot help but see them. That's what's wrong about that.
        JAlexoid 3y ago
        This has little to do with advertising. Consumer sentiment will be shaped by media other than advertising. You watching Instagram of people drinking alcohol and (seemingly) having fun will make you want to drink alcohol. Ads for a particular type of alcohol will only steer your selection of product, but do not induce a desire to get it.
      - jefftk 3y ago
        > ads are the primary way to get the lower economic classes to give their money to the rich This seems very implausible. People's largest expenses are things like housing, healthcare, childcare, and groceries, which are mostly not driven by advertising.
  - ponector 3y ago
    In theory. But in real life you'll pay more with taxes for poor service. My big city in Poland tried several times to get public-private bike sharing. It ended the same: company ceases operation after few years and take all bikes from the streets. People get nothing while millions already spent.
    - lancesells 3y ago
      I live in NYC and I wish bikeshare was a part of public transport. Kids get to use them with their pass, low income gets them, they get the same importance as the train or bus, etc. All part of one system instead of having to use the Lyft or any other app.
      - atdrummond 3y ago
        Kids already get to use Citi bikes for free, as long as they’re part of certain privileged classes (such as asylum seekers or border crossers). The brouhaha over the pregnant nurse “stealing” a youth’s Citi bike was only possible due to the habit of under-18 users camping on bikes to continue riding them for free when their timer expired.
    - digging 3y ago
      > My big city in Poland tried several times to get public-private bike sharing. It ended the same: company ceases operation after few years and take all bikes from the streets. People get nothing while millions already spent. Is this an argument for public-private deals?
  - _dain_ 3y ago
    >Well, then, make the users of the bikes pay the full cost of the bike service. Great, so long as motorists pay the full cost of the roads.
    - willmadden 3y ago
      The beneficiaries of roads are much more than motorists. Almost every employer and the government needs roads to operate. The motorists include trucks that keep society functioning. You would have no food, water, or electricity in 1-2 weeks without roads.
      - _dain_ 3y ago
        The same logic applies to railways, airports, cargo ships.
      - xboxnolifes 3y ago
        The beneficiaries of road alternatives include road users as well. Since it benefits road users, it also benefits everyone you just listed.
      - digging 3y ago
        Then let private motorists pay their share of the upkeep. I'd throw out a guess that it's upwards of 99%.
        MichaelZuo 3y ago
        The reality is the opposite, heavy trucks and buses are responsible for practically all road damage. As road wear and tear is proportional to the third or fourth power of axle weight.
- amadeuspagel 3y ago
  I don't know what to say here anymore. Is this city not capable of collecting taxes? Is this how they pay for any sort of public infrastructure? What monopoly did they exchange to have some private company build and maintain roads, pipes and cables?
- rustcleaner 3y ago
  [dead]
JambalayaJim 3y ago
Local businesses would benefit substantially from the bikeshare service though.
- amadeuspagel 3y ago
  Not if that bikeshare service captures all their profits by having a monopoly on ads.
  - JambalayaJim 3y ago
    That makes no sense. Most local businesses don’t even have ads on bus stops. Let alone that being where most of their profits are invested???
docdeek 3y ago
The ad space exists and the city owns all the ad space. They either get in the business of pricing it and selling it themselves, or they contract that business out. In this case, a condition of the contract was you have to pay for the bike scheme.
- Espressosaurus 3y ago
  So the possibility that the space remains ad-free doesn't exist? Everything is a choice, we don't HAVE to accept these shitty ads everywhere.
  - cheriot 3y ago
    > This bike share scheme is only possible because the city traded away its outdoor ad space. Yes, it's a trade off. I wish my city had free bike share.
  - celestialcheese 3y ago
    > So the possibility that the space remains ad-free doesn't exist? It does exist, but then the cost of the bike sharing would have be borne by a) users of the bike system - this would impact ridership and equity of access. b) local govt - budget would have to come from somewhere. considering b) would likely mean that the project wouldn't get past planning, really a) is the only alternative. Everything is a tradeoff. From my perspective, I'll take shitty ads if the money earned from those ads is spent on significant quality of life improvements. Same reason I support legalization and taxation of gambling, drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, etc where the revenues pay for schools, social services, etc.
    - Y_Y 3y ago
      This is shitty equity too though, I can't ride bikes but I still have to look at your ads and make do with worse economies of scale for public transportation that's accesible to the disabled. If bike share is a public good. It should be paid for out of public funds, if the city decides to sell advertising rights in public spaces then it can. Those two ideas need not be linked, money is fungible!
twosdai 3y ago
I mean this appears to be a similar model as a utility. Right? Basically a legal monopoly with a set of restrictions. I don't see how it's really a bad thing.

It's not a good trade, there shouldn't be a monopoly on public ads, local businesses should be able to reach consumers without having to go through a monopolist that captures all of the value.

ponector 3y ago

The alternative is to not have a cheap popular bikeshare system. Also with monopolist it is really easy to keep some standards, quality of the ads.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago
False dichotomy. The alternative is to have a cheap popular bikeshare system supported by taxes. [Edit to reply to okr, because I'm rate-limited: Well, then, make the users of the bikes pay the full cost of the bike service. As it is, you're pushing ads in everyone's face, whether or not they use the bike. Also no thanks.]
- okr 3y ago
  So, instead of paying my money for a bike as a choice, a monopolist takes money from everyone. Very funny, but no thanks, i take Ads anytime over that.
  - j_maffe 3y ago
    The collective community ends up paying a lot more in quality of life with these ads up. Also, ads are the primary way to get the lower economic classes to give their money to the rich.
    - okr 3y ago
      You give money to get goods. What is wrong about that?
      - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
        You give money you can't really afford to give in order to get goods that you don't really need. You do so because advertisers are skilled professionals, and are better at manipulating you than you are at not being manipulated. And they have put themselves in places where you cannot help but see them. That's what's wrong about that.
        JAlexoid 3y ago
        This has little to do with advertising. Consumer sentiment will be shaped by media other than advertising. You watching Instagram of people drinking alcohol and (seemingly) having fun will make you want to drink alcohol. Ads for a particular type of alcohol will only steer your selection of product, but do not induce a desire to get it.
    - jefftk 3y ago
      > ads are the primary way to get the lower economic classes to give their money to the rich This seems very implausible. People's largest expenses are things like housing, healthcare, childcare, and groceries, which are mostly not driven by advertising.
- ponector 3y ago
  In theory. But in real life you'll pay more with taxes for poor service. My big city in Poland tried several times to get public-private bike sharing. It ended the same: company ceases operation after few years and take all bikes from the streets. People get nothing while millions already spent.
  - lancesells 3y ago
    I live in NYC and I wish bikeshare was a part of public transport. Kids get to use them with their pass, low income gets them, they get the same importance as the train or bus, etc. All part of one system instead of having to use the Lyft or any other app.
    - atdrummond 3y ago
      Kids already get to use Citi bikes for free, as long as they’re part of certain privileged classes (such as asylum seekers or border crossers). The brouhaha over the pregnant nurse “stealing” a youth’s Citi bike was only possible due to the habit of under-18 users camping on bikes to continue riding them for free when their timer expired.
  - digging 3y ago
    > My big city in Poland tried several times to get public-private bike sharing. It ended the same: company ceases operation after few years and take all bikes from the streets. People get nothing while millions already spent. Is this an argument for public-private deals?
- _dain_ 3y ago
  >Well, then, make the users of the bikes pay the full cost of the bike service. Great, so long as motorists pay the full cost of the roads.
  - willmadden 3y ago
    The beneficiaries of roads are much more than motorists. Almost every employer and the government needs roads to operate. The motorists include trucks that keep society functioning. You would have no food, water, or electricity in 1-2 weeks without roads.
    - _dain_ 3y ago
      The same logic applies to railways, airports, cargo ships.
    - xboxnolifes 3y ago
      The beneficiaries of road alternatives include road users as well. Since it benefits road users, it also benefits everyone you just listed.
    - digging 3y ago
      Then let private motorists pay their share of the upkeep. I'd throw out a guess that it's upwards of 99%.
      - MichaelZuo 3y ago
        The reality is the opposite, heavy trucks and buses are responsible for practically all road damage. As road wear and tear is proportional to the third or fourth power of axle weight.
amadeuspagel 3y ago
I don't know what to say here anymore. Is this city not capable of collecting taxes? Is this how they pay for any sort of public infrastructure? What monopoly did they exchange to have some private company build and maintain roads, pipes and cables?
rustcleaner 3y ago
[dead]

JambalayaJim 3y ago

Local businesses would benefit substantially from the bikeshare service though.

amadeuspagel 3y ago
Not if that bikeshare service captures all their profits by having a monopoly on ads.
- JambalayaJim 3y ago
  That makes no sense. Most local businesses don’t even have ads on bus stops. Let alone that being where most of their profits are invested???

docdeek 3y ago

The ad space exists and the city owns all the ad space. They either get in the business of pricing it and selling it themselves, or they contract that business out. In this case, a condition of the contract was you have to pay for the bike scheme.

Espressosaurus 3y ago
So the possibility that the space remains ad-free doesn't exist? Everything is a choice, we don't HAVE to accept these shitty ads everywhere.
- cheriot 3y ago
  > This bike share scheme is only possible because the city traded away its outdoor ad space. Yes, it's a trade off. I wish my city had free bike share.
- celestialcheese 3y ago
  > So the possibility that the space remains ad-free doesn't exist? It does exist, but then the cost of the bike sharing would have be borne by a) users of the bike system - this would impact ridership and equity of access. b) local govt - budget would have to come from somewhere. considering b) would likely mean that the project wouldn't get past planning, really a) is the only alternative. Everything is a tradeoff. From my perspective, I'll take shitty ads if the money earned from those ads is spent on significant quality of life improvements. Same reason I support legalization and taxation of gambling, drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, etc where the revenues pay for schools, social services, etc.
  - Y_Y 3y ago
    This is shitty equity too though, I can't ride bikes but I still have to look at your ads and make do with worse economies of scale for public transportation that's accesible to the disabled. If bike share is a public good. It should be paid for out of public funds, if the city decides to sell advertising rights in public spaces then it can. Those two ideas need not be linked, money is fungible!

twosdai 3y ago

I mean this appears to be a similar model as a utility. Right? Basically a legal monopoly with a set of restrictions. I don't see how it's really a bad thing.