3 ms·
Advertising income was £130 million for last year [1], where passenger income was £4398 million[2], so around 3%. (Minus costs of running commercial advertising
by Symbiote 3y ago
Advertising income was £130 million for last year [1], where passenger income was £4398 million[2], so around 3%. (Minus costs of running commercial advertising?)
I can see many people wouldn't want a 3% fare rise, but it shows smaller changes to the policy — like no longer having these whole-station or other excessive campaigns — wouldn't be a problem.
[1, PDF] https://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-advertising-annual-report-august-2023-acc.pdf https://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-advertising-annual-report-aug...
[2, PDF] https://board.tfl.gov.uk/documents/s19826/TfL%20Budget%202023-24.pdf https://board.tfl.gov.uk/documents/s19826/TfL%20Budget%20202...
- 317070 3y agoI hope these numbers aren't correct. Only 3% for being bombed by ads? (And bombing the whole city with ads on buses as well?) I would gladly pay 20% and maybe even 50% more if they could stop with the ads.
- Symbiote 3y agoI am conscious of those with more limited budgets. Rises of just 1-2% above inflation are already avoided if possible. I'd be fine with increasing the subsidy part of TfL's income to get rid of the adverts — then the cost falls mostly on those who can afford it.
- midasuni 3y agoFrom memory the entire ad income for sky was about 1/10th of their income as a whole. That includes all that damaging gambling adverts in football matches. People are far too accepting of adverts imo, it’s a horrendous industry