You Don't Need It

I like it!

I think whether or not this is vandalism is irrelevant. The message is an important one. We live in a society that constantly bombards us with advertisements and useless information. Corporations create needs for us that we never thought we had to fill.

For those of us with a disposable income, a simple sticker like this can remind us that material goods like these are a frivolous luxury. For those of us who cannot afford the hottest new gadgets on the market, we can smile to ourselves and need not covet.

Vandalism. Plain and simple. Companies pay for the space and therefore have a right to the space. This dude with his stickers pays nothing and has a right to nothing. I LOVE the idea and I support the message, but it is still theft of advertising space and there is no argument about it. Anyone with a law degree and ANY judge will agree. It is a crime. Sorry.

Decidedly subversive. I'm for it.

I like it too. I think I'll print up a pile of them extra-large to plaster on Obama yard signs.

Yes, seeing this sticker will change my attitudes about *everything* ! I'll renounce my consumerist ways!

Or not.

Very rarely have stickers of this ilk done anything but tick people off, if they meant this to have any actual effect on the average person.

Subversive? Sure. Art? No way.

There are better ways of getting the message out than defacing property, and if I paid for ad space, gods help the frakker I catch sticking one of those on it.

Having said that, I like the picture of the one pointing at Kathy Griffin.

why do people ask "is it art or vandalism" as if those where mutually exclusive traits. It is art and it is vandalism.

On store property, no question for me, it's morally wrong. It's not like we're discussing fighting a Nazi regime by distributing illegal leaflets.

People using these stickers are probably opposed to certain societal trends, not merely specific products. At best, it's preaching to the choir. To everyone else, the sticker applier is just some crank foisting his unwelcome opinion on people.

There are plenty of other ways to fight marketers. First and foremost, live what you preach. Your wallet is a ballot and companies listen to the voters. Don't buy their products.

If someone tries to strike up a conversation with you while wearing an earpod, ask them to remove it first because you consider it rude.

If you're very serious, picket the store. I doubt people who are anonymously plastering stickers have the courage of their convictions to picket a store though.

For what it's worth, I don't own an iPod or any hand-held music player (nor will I buy one for my kids). Becoming a father has taught me the difference between lip service (stickers) and walking the walk (teaching by example).

Well, it's a little subversive, since you modify the space and therefore the message the company have paid for. But it's just a sticker, removable as all the stickers can be. Anyhow I find it brilliant because it simply states the opposite of what any advertising message (and marketing indeed) is aimed to: creating new needs.

i thought it was an interesting idea until i looked at the link, and a lot of where they are putting the stickers is just plain vandalism. on cop cars, under graffiti, etc. however, when they put them on ads i tend to care less, because to me, outdoor ads are stealing my view of a beautiful city. i wouldn't call this art though.

I think it's interesting because it represents the fact that we, the people, are the ones that live in these spaces where the companies somehow have been given the right to "buy" space. I say "fuck the advertisers" and "try and stop us"...

Fake Jake: You live in a bus stop?

It's vandalism, pure and simple. If you have something to say, rent your own space to say it. better yet, get a blog for free and say it there. It's not necessary to deface someone else's property to make your point.

Oh, and AJ, give it up. You don't own an iPod, that's fine - but there's nothing wrong with owning one. No need to be smug about it. Personally, I enjoy listening to music. You're just Area Man Constantly Mentioning He Doesn't Own A Television:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28694

Not Another Jake - one could argue advertisers steal our time?

Eh just dumb Vandalism.

If we don't already know we "don't need" the things in the ads....that's not something a sticker can change.

It's just his dumb way of trying to change society. Or something.

haha, funny. They are right. I DON'T need it.

Aren't they advertising themselves when they do that sort of thing?

Seems a little hypocritical, a lot smug, attention-seeking desperate, douchebaggy, vandalist, ineffective.

People do this sort of thing to make themselves feel important. Just take a bath in your Burger King already, and get over it.

.

Buying what you do not need - huh?!

Are you the same people complaining about Gas prices???

It is vandalism. Having said that, it's also great.

Floyd, Advertisements don't steal our time, they buy it.

Telling me shit I and everyone else already knows does not justify vandalism.

I personally think, if big corporations are allowed to shove their products in our faces everday, then someone shoving some good advice in our faces is hardly a bad thing.

We live in a very materialistic world, where useless products have taken over our lives, hoepfully this'll make people realise we don't need the latest gadget.

I'm really surprised at the lack of respect for property here. Sure, materialism is bad. But advertisers pay for ads. I am not justified in spray-painting a message on the front of your house, even if it's a good message, and even if I make it look nice. If you want to make a statement, get permission to use the property you want to make it on. The end does not justify the means.

Sadly you wouldn't get anywhere in this world if you asked for permission to try and change things all the time... Sometimes you just gotta take things into your own hands, I hardly think they're gonna say "Yes, please do stick your anti-consumer message on my advert for my product!"

Anyway, these people are making millions, I'm hardly gonna feel an ounce of guilt for putting a sticker on one of their millions of adverts.

Well I already know that. I already have an iPod.

sure advertising is a type of vandalism,i dont like these huge ad's in my face and telling me too buy this or that
this is a simple but great idea :)

Go Bubble Project!

;)

.-

You wanna see sticker vandalism?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/stickerking/sets/72157601707648957/

This guy (or group of wanna-be artists) has been plastering every light pole, newspaper box, mailbox and pretty much flat surface in a 30 mile radius lately.

Is this the new cool thing? They don't even have the talent of many graffiti artists, it's a joke.

neither advertisers nor vandals pay ME for putting their visuals in my face. I don't want to see adverts on the street.

It's my choice if I want to rent my retina out, not someone who decided they own my retinal space.

Advertisers are vandalising my retina with their ugly words and strange messages.

http://antiadvertisingagency.com/promote-aaa

Can no one see the delicious irony in this?

What would happen if somebody stuck a "you don't need it sticker" on another "you don't need it" sticker?
Black hole implosion?

You don't need to read Neatorama.

Vandalism? Not necessarily. It all depends on how aggressive the adhesive is and what the label is made of. If done right, it'd peel right off. And if done right, it'd be there forever.

It seems very arrogant to me - and patronizing. Do these people seriously think that anyone believes they *need* an iPod? I know I don't need one. I also know I don't want one. Neither the original advert nor the addendum is worthwhile.

You don't need an ipod.

Great point, Shannon.

It's not only vandalism, it's self-promotion disguised as a movement, disguised as a message. It's not cool, kids. I don't care if your adhesive is green and doesn't leave a carbon footprint. It's wrong, and shame on those that support this kind of communication. If we were living in a perfect world...

By your logic Angstrom, if I don't like how you look, you are vandalizing my retina with your face when you walk down the street in my presence. The obvious solution is for everyone to wear blinders on our eyes and navigate with guide dogs because we can't be bothered with reality.

I think they are subversive art and vandalism also.

Anything that snaps people out of their zombot consumer trance gets the thumbs up from me.

Sticker or no, I'm not buying anything I don't need unless its beer.

YOU DON'T NEED IT ---> Thomas's beer.

Wow that was easy. and stupid.

@ Angstrom and Terry et al.

I agree. I hate seeing ads everywhere I look and applaud anyone's attempt; lame, patronising, ineffectual and pointless to many that it may well be to reclaim just a little of my visual landscape from advertisers. I don't care how much they paid for that ad. Screw them.

I don't need > To be told what I don't need.

The ads and windowspace may be an eyesore, but they're less of an eyesore than those stickers.

Also, as others have stated, it's vandalism. It doesn't matter how long it is up there, or how hard it is to remove.

i agree with AJ, here. it's definitely preaching to the choir. i am very anti-consumerism, so the sticker speaks to me and gets me to do that "hell yea!" thing while punching my fist in the air. but those people who actually ENJOY buying needless crap, they have every right to do so. it's their money. the only time i am willing to step in and say something is when that needless consumerism effects me, like this whole mortgage crisis. although i know it's the fault of the banks here, had people actually thought about what their money was paying for (interest, mostly) we may not have this huge of a problem. people are smart enough to say 'no' to credit cards, and they are smart enough to say 'no' to needless crap. but some aren't, and we have to hold their hands-- THAT is when it is bullshit.

I agree that this kind of message mostly preaches to the choir. The split of opinion in this comment thread shows that.
From the middle of the baritone section, I don't buy that because companies have paid for advertising space they have a right to have their adverts completely unobstructed all the time. By that measure advertisers should apply for a partial refund and we'd all be fine again. They could set up cameras trained on every billboard in the world and corporations accounts with the billboard owners could be credited every time anyone stands in front of their poster.
Advertising exists to get us to buy stuff we don't need. If we needed it we would find it ourselves. We are now confronted with a wall of unwanted commercial messages in most towns and cities. All this redundant junk costs money and resources to produce. Perhaps it could be better employed elsewhere?

I remove graffiti for a living and stickers of any kind when placed on someone else's property is vandalism and vandalism is a crime. It's just that simple.

In order for something to be vandalism and hold up in law it needs to be more than temporary. He is not damaging the add in any permanent or semi permanent way.

The advertisers are visually polluting the space I live in (the city). I didn't ask for that. I would LOVE to be able to walk down the street and not have these visuals shoved in my face. I don't give a rat's ass if they 'paid' for the ad space.

I applaud this effort. In fact, I'm gonna get me some stickers!

Your face is visually polluting the space I live in (the city). I didn't ask to see your face. I would LOVE to be able to walk down the street and not have your face shoved in my face. I don't give a rat's ass if you "paid" for the house you live in here.

I applaud this effort. In fact, I'm going to get some paper bags!

******

What kind of bubble to you live in to think the world around you exists for your personal visual satisfaction? If all people are equal, then they have equal rights to purchase space and use it as they please. Even for advertisement. You're no better than them -- how dare you dictate what they do with their own property? If they tried to control *your* property, you'd be up in arms. A double standard if ever there was one.

Plain and simple, it's vandalism. Just because someone put a sticker on an ipod advertisement doesn't mean people aren't going to buy it. It's the person choice as to what he needs or doesn't need. I use my ipod daily, on the commute to and from work, working out, going running, listening to it around the house. It is almost irreplaceable to me. I don't like the concept, we all know the world is materialistic, one man putting stickers on advertisements isn't going to change that.

Where can I buy one of those stickers?

Just because something is a 'crime' doesn't make it wrong, and just because something is 'paid for' doesn't make it right.

To all you people defending the companies 'rights', maybe you should look at what crimes these companies have committed. Sweatshops, false advertising, environmental destruction... I only support the rights of non-criminal enterprises.

Companies pay people like me to make them look good. Yet I'm all for the people having a voice back to bring reality and dialogue back into the equation. This subtle subversive reality check is fantastic.

It's vandalism. The ad company paid for that space; the little "you don't need it" sticker is a parasite, using the moneys paid by the ad company to give you a message they've not paid for.

Regardless of the truth (or relevance) of the parasitic message, the basic issue here is property rights, not what the ad says. You want to tell people they don't need stuff? Fine. Buy an ad.

When I look at all the home-made, illegal ads taped, pasted, and stapled to streetlamps and walls, it's a lot worse than billboard advertising.

This sticker is just more garbage.

The advertiser who rented the space probably doesn't care a whit about said sticker. Folks who want their product are going to purchase it anyway. Now the property owner who has to either spend half an hour with a razor blade and goo-gone to remove the sticker (or pay someone to) is probably going to feel otherwise.