There is plenty of information out there on, for example, the dangers of smoking, yet people smoke. There is public transit, warning about smog, concerns about gas prices and so on, yet people choose to get into a car by themselves every day. Is that the result of advertising? Clearly the public service "advertising" to do the contrary (don't smoke, take transit) failed as well.
I dont think it is fair to say that because people did not enmasse move out of their cars and onto buses during the last transit advertising campaign. Car companies have multi billion dollar campaigns that continue to build upon the car culture year after year. The TTC gets a couple million, which it can barely afford to give up in the first place, and has to do as much with as little as possible. All one has to do is turn on a TV and watch commercials for even just 15 minutes and you see very quickly just how few "public service" commercials there are compared to those being aired by private companies.
Find me one advertising campaign that measurably hooks, oh, fifteen percent of viewers into buying the product and you've found yourself a miracle. Most don't come close to that. And does not matter how many romantic sunsets, big tits or fast cars abound.
That depends on what length of time you are viewing the effects of the campaign on consumers. Think about the McDonalds campaigns to attract children, Wal-Mart's Everyday Low Prices, Miller Lite, Bud Light, or even Starbucks and their non-advertising marketing programs. There are numerous examples of campaigns that have not only attracted a high number of consumers to buy, and regularly buy their products, but also elevate the companies/products into such a status where no one even questions it, or those who do question it are often ridiculed and labelled 'advertising hating commies' or something similair to that.
What? More ads? More evil mind control (lite)? How about real information? Many people, if treated with respect, will actually listen to a reasonable argument. Some may even change if the ideas make sense to them. You won't convince everyone, though. That'll never happen.
There is nothing wrong with countering advertising with advertising. But it does have it limits. You can have a smart advertising campaign on a shoe string budget that could help attract a respectable number of new riders. But there are still going to be a lot of people who are either a) not going to be persuaded because your campaign is not as neat and shiny and celebrity and tit laden as a multi-billion dollar corporations campaign b) think your advertising campaign is stupid or have not been persuaded enough by your adverts c) think all advertising is bunk and will simply go out and find out the facts for themselves and make a decision not based on ads, but on thoughful research and reflection.
I cant see car adverts being banned. It is not like smoking or drinking were there are very well defined, easily seen consequences. Show how many kids a drunk driver killed, or a child with asthma from second hand smoke and its little surprise that people pushed for the idea of limiting advertising on these two products. But cars. Thats a whole different story. Cars are rarely viewed or portrayed in a negative light. And in the cases where a negative stigma has been attached to them, it is usually through the driver, clearing the actual machine of any wrong doing. The car is a sacred cow, a religion (or cult depending on your point of view). It does have a lot of good uses and has benefits to society, but there are aspects of the myth and culture of the automobile that make it an almost impossible target for advertising bans.
And nor do I think they should be banned. In fact there are very few cases where I think advertising should be limited or outright banned (child advertising is one of those instances but that is an entirely different discussion). Yes there are very negative side effects associated with the car but if that is the message that one wants to send out to people, it is best done side by side with the advertising and culprit in question. And there is far from just one solution and method of attack. Transit can still make gains by fighting fire with fire and working toward creating smart, advertising campaigns to attract riders. Activism and protest are another good tool too use. And also education, which is among the most important. If more youth are taught how to be critical of media, how to dissect a commercial and understand the methods the company is using to persuade you too buy their product, how to seperate factual information from false promises and exaggerations, then there is less need to regulate the airwaves as way of protecting the 'fragile, impressionable' population.
And at the end of the day, Im not worried about advertising. Turn off your TV or at least stop consuming commercial media sources and you find that the constant bombardment rapidly disappears. Marketing and advertising largely responds to the shape of society as it exists at the momment. When most every city and town built today is a car dependant suburb, who is really all that surprised by the number of car commericals? Its a natural response for these companies. What worries me are the policies that shape society that lead to this condition in the first place. A billion dollar expressway will do far more to promote car culture than a billion dollar advertising campaign ever could. Likewise, a billion dollar well invested in public transit, education, and urbanism will do far more at promoting sustainable cities and living than the most lavish TTC publicity ever could.
