Sam Posted July 7, 2012 Share #1 Posted July 7, 2012 While railfanning with my young son on the A line in Brooklyn, I noticed that the Fulton Street line has been stripped of advertising. I don't use this line as I used to back in the 1970s, '80s and 90s, but the absence of advertising was striking. For a system that is continuously crying for more revenue, it's puzzling at best. What are some ways that the MTA can bring in more revenue and hopefully improve service? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest18 Posted July 7, 2012 Share #2 Posted July 7, 2012 I see ads on S in city. Maybe they put more ad on trains? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted July 7, 2012 Share #3 Posted July 7, 2012 While railfanning with my young son on the A line in Brooklyn, I noticed that the Fulton Street line has been stripped of advertising. I don't use this line as I used to back in the 1970s, '80s and 90s, but the absence of advertising was striking. For a system that is continuously crying for more revenue, it's puzzling at best. What are some ways that the MTA can bring in more revenue and hopefully improve service? As far as I know, Fulton Street has as much advertising as any other line. They might have been replacing the ads that day. There are none. Do you want fare hikes and less service? I see ads on S in city. Maybe they put more ad on trains? That costs money to install those ads, that's why they are only on the 3 car ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSubwayStation Posted July 7, 2012 Share #4 Posted July 7, 2012 There are none. Do you want fare hikes and less service? I think he wants to avoid that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest18 Posted July 7, 2012 Share #5 Posted July 7, 2012 That costs money to install those ads, that's why they are only on the 3 car ... I see ad on 6 train too. MTA make money from ad on train but put only few? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted July 7, 2012 Share #6 Posted July 7, 2012 I see ad on 6 train too. MTA make money from ad on train but put only few? Those small ads aren't noticeable, not many companies want to buy those. They can't be seen often as the train goes through tunnels... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest18 Posted July 7, 2012 Share #7 Posted July 7, 2012 Those small ads aren't noticeable, not many companies want to buy those. They can't be seen often as the train goes through tunnels... Sign big and cover train? How nobody see ad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted July 7, 2012 Share #8 Posted July 7, 2012 Sign big and cover train? How nobody see ad? The small ones, I said... Those are the ones on the ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSubwayStation Posted July 7, 2012 Share #9 Posted July 7, 2012 Sign big and cover train? How nobody see ad? Oh, a few of the signs are big. But most of them are small, which is what ThrexxBus was talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest18 Posted July 7, 2012 Share #10 Posted July 7, 2012 The small ones, I said... Those are the ones on the ... Oh! Sorry I confuse. Oh, a few of the signs are big. But most of them are small, which is what ThrexxBus was talking about. Why so small? Make big one like 6 train. Better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooklynIRT Posted July 8, 2012 Share #11 Posted July 8, 2012 No! No make big one like train! Big sign not better! Sorry, I could not resist. I think that if MTA can make more money by putting the big ads on the trains like the Swatch ads on the trains, which you would think they could as advertisers would likely pay more money for more noticeable ads, then they should do it to help out their (MTA's, not the advertisers') economic situation. However, I prefer trains and buses free of exterior ads as they have a cleaner appearance without the ads. Buses free of exterior ads are nonexistent unless they just came out of the paint shop though and it has been that way for years. Some of the ads/wraps do look cool (especially the NY Rangers branding), but still I prefer the clean look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest18 Posted July 8, 2012 Share #12 Posted July 8, 2012 No! No make big one like train! Big sign not better! Sorry, I could not resist. I think that if MTA can make more money by putting the big ads on the trains like the Swatch ads on the trains, which you would think they could as advertisers would likely pay more money for more noticeable ads, then they should do it to help out their (MTA's, not the advertisers') economic situation. However, I prefer trains and buses free of exterior ads as they have a cleaner appearance without the ads. Buses free of exterior ads are nonexistent unless they just came out of the paint shop though and it has been that way for years. Some of the ads/wraps do look cool (especially the NY Rangers branding), but still I prefer the clean look. My English not so good. You make fun of me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted July 8, 2012 Share #13 Posted July 8, 2012 Advertising won't help. We need congestion pricing, and the needs a World Trade Center style building like the Port Authority has so they can lease it out and charge rent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooklynIRT Posted July 8, 2012 Share #14 Posted July 8, 2012 My English not so good. You make fun of me? I can tell your English is not so good. Yes, I guess you could say I was essentially making fun of you. I was not trying to be mean though. In any case, I will not do that again. Sorry if I offended you. Also I wrote a real response to your post after I wrote "Sorry, I could not resist." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Posted July 8, 2012 Author Share #15 Posted July 8, 2012 Advertising won't help. We need congestion pricing, and the needs a World Trade Center style building like the Port Authority has so they can lease it out and charge rent. I couldn't disagree more! There would be no broadcast television without advertising revenue. Even the internet is dependent on advertising revenue. Congestion pricing is nothing more than a regressive tax that would drive up the cost of doing business in NYC, exactly what's not needed in a fragile economy. As far as a WTC building to lease, the MTA's primary function is to deliver mass transit services and maintain TBTA bridges and tunnels. The "transit tax" to small businesses and the self-employed has been an utter failure. The State and City have been complicit with reducing funding. in fact, the debt service now hitting the MTA is for money borrowed to improve infrastructure and maintenance during the 1980s and '90s commensurate to government cuts. Billions of dollars have been lost in bad MTA real estate transactions; In other words, areas of expertise are not readily transferable. There's a reason why KFC does not sell burgers! My point of raising the issue of generating more revenue is that it's apparent that the MTA does not fully exploit its potential. I was pointing out that the Fulton Street line was devoid of advertising; the ad casings had been removed leaving only the stained white tiles behind. One other example of exploiting revenue could be to have ads on the R160 screens. That seems like a complete waste of potential. No need to buy more real estate; many stations have abandoned stores that could be filled with rent paying businesses. Many of these small businesses were forced out by the MTA itself. So I ask again, what are new (and even old) ways for the MTA to maximize its ability to generate revenue and improve service? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHV9218 Posted July 8, 2012 Share #16 Posted July 8, 2012 I can tell your English is not so good. Yes, I guess you could say I was essentially making fun of you. I was not trying to be mean though. In any case, I will not do that again. Sorry if I offended you. Also I wrote a real response to your post after I wrote "Sorry, I could not resist." Don't beat yourself up about it. Really, don't. At all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kriston Lewis Posted July 8, 2012 Share #17 Posted July 8, 2012 I was pointing out that the Fulton Street line was devoid of advertising; the ad casings had been removed leaving only the stained white tiles behind. When the ads were up, they were frequently vandalized and seldom maintained. Sometimes, they would just fall off the tiles. I don't think advertisers want to pay for that, nor does the MTA want to deal with the hassle. So, the ads went away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Posted July 9, 2012 Author Share #18 Posted July 9, 2012 When the ads were up, they were frequently vandalized and seldom maintained. Sometimes, they would just fall off the tiles. I don't think advertisers want to pay for that, nor does the MTA want to deal with the hassle. So, the ads went away. Interesting. However, we can see vandalized ads throughout the system such as on the Concourse line. Why remove ads on one line and not another? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoTimer Posted July 9, 2012 Share #19 Posted July 9, 2012 He never said advertising revenue isn't working, it just isn't enough anymore, in previous decades it used to be. The union points to 2 Broadway, a building it doesn't own as significant cost savings, and prefers management moving all its operations back to 370 Jay, which stands mostly empty; and other misc. sites underground (like the numerous places in the IND with fully closed off mezzanines), prefering to have most of its operations clustered around a group of buildings in downtown Brooklyn. The union also feels their Madison Av building is a waste of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgor Posted July 9, 2012 Share #20 Posted July 9, 2012 Advertising won't help. We need congestion pricing, and the needs a World Trade Center style building like the Port Authority has so they can lease it out and charge rent. Congestion pricing will cause everything sold in Manhattan to go up in price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric B Posted July 9, 2012 Share #21 Posted July 9, 2012 Interesting. However, we can see vandalized ads throughout the system such as on the Concourse line. Why remove ads on one line and not another? It was probably particularly bad on the Fulton line. I saw that they tiled the ad slot in over there, and figured it made sense that thay would finally give up on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Posted July 10, 2012 Author Share #22 Posted July 10, 2012 He never said advertising revenue isn't working, it just isn't enough anymore, in previous decades it used to be. The union points to 2 Broadway, a building it doesn't own as significant cost savings, and prefers management moving all its operations back to 370 Jay, which stands mostly empty; and other misc. sites underground (like the numerous places in the IND with fully closed off mezzanines), prefering to have most of its operations clustered around a group of buildings in downtown Brooklyn. The union also feels their Madison Av building is a waste of money. I didn't mean to say that advertising was enough; however, every dime should be squeezed before asking for fare/toll increases. I agree completely with John Samuelsen and the waste of money at 2 Broadway and Madison Avenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.