TriMet Turning Away Money
Today BlogTown pointed to an article that TriMet is going to cancel an advertising contract to run ads for the Grand Theft Auto video game since it’s violent and supposedly promotes bad behavior. As expected, the first reaction that most folks are having is one questioning whether video games promote violence.
I don’t think that’s the real issue here. TriMet’s job isn’t to decide whether or not video games promote or encourage violence. TriMet’s job is to move people from Point A to Point B. That’s it. For TriMet to become some sort of moral authority is a waste of time and money.
All public transit systems lose money. If they charged the actual costs of operations as fares, they’d be so expensive that folks wouldn’t ride. As a result, everyone’s tax dollars are given to transit organizations who use the public’s money to help move people around. Since we all have an investment in public transit, we should all scrutinize stupid money behavior by those agencies. TriMet is giving up $71,000 by canceling their ad contract. With a shiny new bus mall in the works, non-trivial fuel costs, and daily operations that cost far more money than the amount of revenue produced, it seems like a waste of everyone’s money for TriMet to get picky about their advertising. They should accept advertising contracts from any legal business who wants to give them money. Period.
If you care how your tax dollars are spent, contact TriMet and share your thoughts.
Can I just point out today’s article in Theo titled Transit Projects Running On Empty ? EMPTY!? We’re broke and we don’t need your 70 grand?
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/116459970839310.xml&coll=7
Whisky Tango Foxtrot, Tri-Met?
Yeah! And while they’re at it they’d better pull the ads for all fast food joints because they serve food that makes people fat and of course no place that serves alcohol because they’ll make people drink and drive and what…are they kidding?
Institutions of Higher Education?!
People might learn think for themselves!
They’re damned if they do, and damned if they don’t. If they tell the community “No, we need the money, we don’t care about your kids” they get crucified. If they pull the ads and give back the cash, the folks who care about fiscal responsibility will scream bloody murder. I’m guessing someone was trying to pick the least painful course.
are they really giving up their money? none of the articles say so. they only lose money if they don’t get another contract.
i would say it seems worthwhile to just get another less controversial company to advertise.
It’s very simple:
If someone, whether it be a private business like a newspaper, or a public agency like Tri Met, exercises control over any of the advertising they run, then they become responsible for ALL of the advertising they run.
If the powers that be at Tri Met want to take that step, then they can’t complain about any of the ads they run on their buses or stops.
And here’s the thing: ANY ad they run is going to be controversial to SOMEone.
Good luck avoiding controversy, Tri Met (or, whoever).
I’m agree with the statement above that Tri Met should accept any ad from any legal business that otherwise meets their size or formatting requirements, regardless of content. Public agencies should be able, no, make that REQUIRED, to present all of the views of their constituents. When they silence the viewpoint of a minority because of some other minority group, they do a disservice to public discourse.
Next time someone complains, Tri Met should respond with a quote for their rates for advertising and ask the complainants to pony up, same as anyone else.
Heh.