The New Longer-Lasting Axe Effect

...is to make me feel in need of a shower after walking through Harvard Station. More so than usual, that is.

How can the T be fine with letting them plaster one of the busiest stations on the system with banners that say things like "Warning: Discarded undergarments may cause track fires", and yet prohibit ads calling for a reexamination of marijuana laws? It positively reeks of hypocrisy (among other things).

One is against the law, the other is legal- that's how. Don't like it don't buy the product. If it bothers you so much don't pay attention to it. The vast majority of people who pass through the station could care less what the ads say or what they are for so if it doesn't affect them it doesn't matter. It's revenue to the T and the company paid alot of it to get those ads in the station.

Um, advocating marajuana law reform is not against the law.

ceo wrote:Um, advocating marajuana law reform is not against the law.

Don't start the liberal garbage here. Advocating and illegal product. The T saw right through that garbage.

I don't see why the T should refuse advertising revenue from any political advocacy group.

Ron Newman wrote:I don't see why the T should refuse advertising revenue from any political advocacy group.

That's garbage. It's not the group the T is refusing it's the message. The T allows the message the T looks like it's advocating the usage. Doesn't matter if the group is or not, it comes back to the T.

efin98 wrote:

ceo wrote:Um, advocating marijuana law reform is not against the law.

Don't start the liberal garbage here. Advocating and illegal product. The T saw right through that garbage.

Advocating law changes is not against the law, that's what our legislators do everyday. On the other hand, Taking your undergarments off and throwing them on the tracks in a train station is against the law. It's called indicent exposure.

By the way, has the T ever accepted ads from a pro-life group?

The way I see it, this topic is becoming a political war about something that has absolutely nothing to do with MBTA rail operations in the first place. I suggest this topic be locked.

Moving back to topic, what you saw in Harvard Square is called "station domination". I've seen several different companies do this, in several different stations. It can be annoyingly unsubtle.

It's also not limited to the T. For an extreme example, read this.

Ron Newman wrote:Moving back to topic, what you saw in Harvard Square is called "station domination". I've seen several different companies do this, in several different stations. It can be annoyingly unsubtle.

I rode a Red Line car this PM that was "dominated" by said Axe ads. So the Harvard ads make a little bit more sense in that context.

Somebody must've forked over a princely wad to ensure that some Red Line riders see nothing but that ad through the duration of their commute.

They should know there are ways to inundate and there are ways to not, subtlety is best. The ones that are up around Marathon time at the major stations are the way the ads should be done, not oversaturation with quasi-offensive ads. When sales don't improve much the company will not bother with the attempted inundation again...

DTX - Red Line is plastered with iPod Shuffle, and so many of the Red Line cars are plastered with Bud (Extra). I know we have had the discussion about the Bacardi wraps, but I think the Bud ads are pushing a point, when you can't look away and not see another ad! I agree that the T needs to generate revenue but to plaster the INSIDE of a car where you are actually a captive audience, should be reconsidered. AXE also has many other cars monopolized from one end to another, and I think the T could be more imaginative with their ad placements.

Reddy Rocker wrote:The way I see it, this topic is becoming a political war about something that has absolutely nothing to do with MBTA rail operations in the first place. I suggest this topic be locked.

I agree, I feel this thread has gone far enough. Let's move on along...