Posted May 23 at 9 a.m.

"Going Public," for one, is glad to see the CTA get advertising of any sort.  For me, it means more mass transit for everyone.  Plus, some bus and train wraps -- especially if they are of a vivid color -- make the aging equipment look a bit better.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not for ads plastered everywhere like a scene from some sci fi movie, but it seems justifiable for the beleaguered agency to catch as catch can.  We want the agency to rope in revenue, through a variety of streams from increased ridership to advertising deals.

But there is such a thing as over-advertising, according to a Rogers Park rider, who is lamenting the loss of his view out of the bus window:

It’s bad enough that the CTA is forced to sell its walls to advertisers to cover what should be paid by public funds (and taken from corporations through taxes). But now they are selling our windows?! Not only do we have to grovel in Springfield every year (while Daley feigns innocence) for what should be the first item on any budget, but advertisers now add insult to humiliating injury, offering us a devil’s bargain. In exchange for still-underfunded service, we give up our rights to look out the window. Have we really sunk so low? Has the corporate colonization of the earth really gone so far that no inch of glass or ounce of dignity is free? Outrage.

Joseph Grim

Feinberg
Rogers Park

What do you think?  Is there such a thing as too much advertising on the CTA?  For example, are you CTA spooked by holographic images in tunnels or possible ads on "L" car video screens? 

Or are you of the opinion that anything goes, advertising-wise anyway, as long as the result is more green for mass transit?

Posted May 1, 5:03 p.m.

Ready for rhyme time on the bus?

You'd better be, if you're a Pace rider.  Today marked their first day of poetry on public transit via the TV screens aboard their buses, according to a Trib report. 

While I support literature in every format, I beg the CTA not to get any ideas from this particular concept. 

First of all, I like to read poetry, not listen to it, and to have it verbally visited upon me while I'm stuck on a vehicle...unacceptable. 

Art, after all, is a matter of individual taste.  I can think of other ways to enjoy the arts on public transit in a less in-your-face manner, such as the sculptures in some stations and poems that occupy some ad space.I even like to check out subway singing every now and again. 

How about you?  Or do you want a little rhyme with your ride?

Posted April 24, 4:45 p.m.

I have no gripes with ads along the CTA, despite the opposition of some who decry the commercialization of our society. 

Whatever.  I guess they'd like to see the agency sell baked goods to make money.

I say, let the ads flow forth, especially since they put money into the much-maligned agency's pockets.  Bring on the Comcastic bike-rack ads, wrap every bus, and cover station walls, and even the floor, with promotions. 

Surround some of those ugly "L" trains with a wrap, just as long as said wrap isn't equipped with an audio chip that enables it to shout out slogans.

The only place I draw the line is at mall kiosks,which theoretically, could be set up in stations.  Crikey, could you imagine someone huckstering cell phone cases, phony ponies, or those weird-looking Crocs while you wait for a train?  (Shudder)

But some obviously draw the line at certain kinds of ads on the trains, buses and in stations.  There is controversy brewing over a recent CTA decision to pull an ad for one of the controversial "Grand Theft Auto" games, aka GTA. 

A rider sent me a note about this, but GameSpot wrote an article about the topic today.  In short, the CTA pulled the "Grand Theft Auto IV" ads because of a previous flap over a 2004 ad for a "Grand Theft: San Andreas Fault" game, secured by one of their previous advertising partners, GameSpot reported. 

Personally, I think this is silly.  If the CTA can advertise for "The Ruins," an obviously gory movie about ancient beasties/people crawling under people's skin, you can let the peepz know about GTA.  I'm not saying you can show someone being yanked out of a Porsche made of pixels, but the GTA ads in question were fairly tame, in my opinion. 

Admittedly, I am speaking from a non-parent perspective, and would not want my godson playing these games at his tender age.  Still, I don't think ads for GTA flies in the face of this stated policy of the CTA's advertising standards:

"CTA guidelines require ads to be truthful, and not directed at inciting imminent lawless action," the CTA representative told GameStop. "They cannot be legally obscene or portraying graphic violence."

Look at the ad featured toward the end of this video from Fox and tell me:  Do you think the ads should have been pulled?