A Chicken in Every Pothole

The title for this post came from a comment at reddit. I couldn't resist!

Lets see PETA put a spin on this.

Wouldn't mind this at all around where I live in PA, the potholes are out of hand.

Baaaaaad idea.
If there is not enough public found to fix the roads, that just means that the tax are too low, or badly managed, or both.
I am sick of living in a country-sized shopping mall, down with these behemoth chains.

Mouserz, I was thinking the same thing. Somewhere, there is a PETArd wetting themselves in a rage.

I think that it's as good a place to advertise as any, and they'd be doing something useful with that advertisement. Given that most advertisements are eyesores with nothing useful to do, why not?

Funny, here, pothole are called ''nid de poule'' wich in french mean roughly ''chicken hole''
KFC, I see what you did there.

Evilbeagle> Why not ? Because it's part of a propaganda campaign about "goodwill" from private companies.

Private companies seek to make money. Period.
So this ridiculous advertisement campaign is just a way to fix their bad reputation.
Without solving the problem: that they sell crappy and unhealthy food, bad for you arteries and the environment. And that they are a giant ubiquitous corporation invading every corner of the world with their cloned, whimsical food menu.

Indirectly, it's a way of convincing people that they are benevolent (and not the state).
At least, privatizing the roads and make people pay a toll would be more honest.

I know that people are not that naive, but it's the accumulation of small little things like this that make a difference.

Hey, it's not a conspiracy. Just basic (and egoist) economical reasoning from 'Yum! Brands' executives.

And no, I am not vegan at all.

Kinda sad that KFC won't offer to fix the roads just to be nice. Nooo, only if they can slap a greasy chicken logo on the work somewhere. If I was a rival and had money to blow, I'd offer to repair for free with no strings attached. It would be good publicity and make you look better than KFC.

Popeyes? Chick-fil-A? Boston market? you guys out there?

I would propose a compromise. KFC fixes the potholes, but can only use temporary paint for their logo.

They look like little chicken graves.

I'd like to see what those clever graffiti artists do to them

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."

Benito Mussolini

Humo, if you aren't going into business to make money, you should not go into business. There is nothing wrong with making money or advertising. This form of advertising at least does something more than create an eyesore, and it is less intrusive because it is underfoot. Beats a billboard.

Secondly, KFC still exists because people go there of their own free will. No one is making anyone clog their arteries and no one is making them get fat. Don't approve of their food, don't eat there. Simple. When someone eats so much fast food that they damage themselves, they only have themselves to blame, not the fast food place.

Thanks, EB. Exactly what I thought when I read those comments. KFC's not a philanthropic organization. It's another case of the corporation-bashers smokin' a little too much weed and runnin' their mouths off.

My only complaint would be that it would make the roads a little confusing. And why isn't the government fixing those potholes, anyway?

Thanks, ted. I tend to get a little fired up when the corporation bashers/food police get their knickers in a twist because a company wants to ... gasp... make money or make food that has things like fat in it. They tend to paint anyone that works hard and tries to make a profit like one dimensional, greedy monsters, and that is not the case. If you are ashamed of making money and being successful, run a charity.

And then the whole "KFC is unhealthy" thing gets to me too because no one is twisting anyone's arm to eat there. Why is it so hard to take responsibility for oneself?

I agree that the city should fix the potholes, too. But they aren't, apparently. So might as well let someone else step in and get some face time for it. I don't know that it would be anymore confusing than all the stuff that gets painted on the roads as it is, especially after people get used to it.

EB and Ted> Yeah guys, I am just a granola eating hippie... yap yap yap

Sorry guys, but I am forced to share the same space than you. You might like to live in a country-sized shopping mall, but I don't (and I am not the only one).

"one dimensional, greedy monsters, and that is not the case". Yes, it is more or less the case. We are not talking about your local burger shop, but of a giant international company. Its purpose is to expand, it's part of the goal of a corporation (they are designed like this). At one point, the only way to expand more is to destroy existing business and cultural habits, like an invasive weed. And convincing people to consume their product, especially "vulnerable" people like kids. Remember when tobaccos companies convinced your parents that smoking was cool and even healthy ?

So guys, would you let me disagree with this goal ? I am not ashamed of making money, but not at all cost. It's called moral, something not very trendy, I know. The kind of stuff that is lost inside the mechanisms of big organisations. No conspiracy, just basic social mechanisms. That's why we can change our governments by voting.

You don't mind with their advertisement, but if it was some message from the state, I am sure you would call that propaganda.
Corporations are not your friends, it's not free competition in a free market, as they tend to twist the market to their own advantage.
Corporations have to be monitored.

If the demand for what the corporation is supplying is there, they will succeed. In other words, their success depends on the general public. They have a right to exist in a free market just as the mom and pop shop on the corner does, and if they have the money to expand and advertise, it is their right to use it. You do not have to buy from them if you are so against them. Corporation does not necessarily equate to evil as much as you would like to think so. I think you've watched a few too many 80's movies, Humo. Sorry. While you have a point in saying that there should be monitoring (and there is to a certain extent), it doesn't mean that the monitoring should be limited to big corporations. I can name quite a few small business owners that should be behind bars or already have been.

We get messages from the state all the time, warning us that drinking and smoking are bad. We get PSA's up the ying yang. We have signs up all over the place telling us not to speed, loiter, litter,etc. We get unwanted phone calls from campaign offices that are not included in the Do Not Call lists though I feel that they should be. So, a KFC ad on a pot hole is not going to bother me. I'll just be glad that there is no pot hole.

And believe it or not, people can think for themselves. They can take responsibility for themselves too. Just because KFC is advertising on a pot hole doesn't mean that anyone has to go get a bucket of chicken. Heck, I don't even eat fast food, but I'm not going to complain that they are out to make a living too, and employing a lot of people while they are at it.

The only problem I have with this is the printing of words on a roadway. There are enough distractions already for idiots on the road, and you don't need them leaning out the window to read the advertisement on the street. I don't know about the tire companies though, they might suffer a loss from all those pot holes beings fixed.

I think it's a great idea. If the city's not able to get the problem fixed and a private company has the means and wants to do it, they should be allowed to. And it's not as if there's never an overlap between the government and private corporations. Lots of city bus systems allow advertising on the buses. Why not the road? As long as they make sure that the adds have to be a certain color that's not associated with road safety messages (like blue or green or red or something instead of the white and yellow that are usually pavement markers for safety things like crosswalks), and not incredibly huge (like maybe 3 ft square max?) I think it's a great idea.

And I like Edward's idea posted above about having to use temporary paint. That way the company would get the advertising, but it would eventually wear off. That way the roads wouldn't be cluttered over the years with bunches of signs painted over signs painted over signs ,signs for companies that have been defunct for years, or signs that are old and faded eyesores.

I think a lot of other jobs that the governments don't have the resources or funds to get done should be offered for corporate sponsorship. From big things like libraries and buses to things like parks and playgrounds and school improvements to even little things like garbage bins, bus stops, and porta-potties. I know in my community, people would rather have a really great library called the Coca-Cola library than a mediocre library called the city library. People would rather have covered bus-stops with benches that said McDonalds on them than just having to wait standing near a sign in the weather like they do know. We'd rather have our kids be able to use a state of the art computer lab in every school called the Best Buy Computer lab than try and share the way too few and too out-dated computers they use now. Businesses are going to pay to advertise, why not let the people get something useful in return?