Homeless Hotspots
For those of you not in South By Southwest, there’s a bit of an issue going on that’s got a lot of people in quite the tizzy.
So that’s bad, isn’t it?
Rich white people turning poor black folk into 21st Century tech-slaves. They’re like the cotton pickers of yore, breaking their backs for a meagre wage while the white masser looks down from his antebellum mansion before popping indoors to exercise his droit de seigneur over the poor chap’s missus.
Well, no. It’s not really. The only things that really matter in this world are measurable results in real life. Everything else is in your head, and that includes middle class hipster hand-wringing, outrage at the merciless stripping of dignity, indignation at the ‘exploitation’ of people you’ve never met and all the other emotions that rise up inside you that actually say more about you than about the situation.
Meanwhile, Clarence gets a sandwich and some dude from Goodby’s gets to surf Pornhub while he walks around Austin.
Those are some great measurable results in real life.
Measurable results aren’t everything are they though? To use your analogy, I’m sure a lot of cotton got picked in the Southern states before the Emancipation Proclamation but that doesn’t make it morally right or ethically defensible. The ends don’t always justify the means.
Also, using homeless people for anything to do with advertising is just a bit crass and lazy isn’t it? If someone had brought you that idea in a student book, what would you honestly have said to them? ‘No tramps’ is a good rule for ads. Selling anything through other, less fortunate people’s hardships might not be ‘wrong’ but it sure does seems distasteful.
And that’s not middle-class hipster handwringing. It’s just having a conscience and not being an arsehole.
I think conceptually it’s a good idea. However, the messaging needs to be more sensitive and what happens to Clarence after SXSW? There’s a bigger idea here.
Anonymice, I said results matter, not that they’re ‘good’. I also didn’t say they were morally right or ethically defensible. You can’t measure those because they only exist in this place called ‘the mind of Anonymice’.
‘Crass’, ‘distasteful’ and ‘lazy’ are also in your mind.
BBH Labs did something that fed some homeless guys. What did you do, except complain that it wouldn’t be very impressive in a student book?
I’m delighted that your conscience is happy for people to go hungry as long as you don’t have to stoop to being an ‘arsehole’.
Why are you assuming all homeless people are black?
tut tut Ben.
Why are you assuming I’m assuming all homeless people are black?
I dunno. Would it be okay if we used then as wank machines in exchange for a cappuccino and a donut? Or how about posts upon which to stick our chewing gum?It strikes me as degrading. I wouldn’t like it.
But then holding a golf sale sign isn’t much better. Mankind can do better than this. It’s kind of psychopathic.
First off, the homeless guys aren’t advertising anything aside from being homeless hotspots – unless you put promotion of BBH on there but I don’t see that in BBH’s intentions.
I think one real benefit of this is that it means there’s potential for some actual interaction between the homeless guys and the people using the wifi. One of the biggest issues for homeless people trying to reintegrate into society is that homeful people* – on the whole – are uncomfortable about being approached by or having to speak to, homeless people. You’d have to be a pretty tremendous ass to have a completely silent transaction with a homeless guy you’re getting wifi off. Yes being a homeless hotspot is degrading on paper but perhaps it’s proving humanising in real life.
*is now a term.
“Rich white people turning poor black folk into 21st Century tech-slaves….”
Anonymouse, are you related to Anonymice?
‘Would it be okay if we used then as wank machines in exchange for a cappuccino and a donut?’
If they’re OK with that.
I think we’re getting the word ‘used’ all mixed up here. They are willing to do this small non-task to make some money.
You think it’s ‘degrading’. You ‘wouldn’t like it’.
You don’t sleep outside or eat from bins.
I like ideas that get this type of response. It means they’re good, usually.
But I won’t be giving one of these homeless transmitters a home. My Sky router is also black by the way.
@anonymice What was being sold?
Isn’t it a kind of Big Issue idea? Hey you homeless guys (some of which maybe black) could makes some cash by doing this……
Nobody was forced to do anything. Are we really comparing this to the slave trade. Really?
Agreed it doesn’t solve the real problem that capitalism post war has been in decline in the western world. But I have a hunch that BBH may not be up to solving that one either.
I see your point, Ben, but I kind of struggle with your assertion that the world is reducible to measurable things. I’ve encountered this line of argument at work before, and it seems strange in the context of advertising, because advertising works with concepts, emotions, representations etc. Of course, these fuzzy things have measurable effects, but it doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
My gut response to this project was that it was a bit dehumanising, perhaps because of the wording on the t-shirts. But I can see how the idea works as an update to the street newspaper concept, not to mention that it provides a context for people to, you know, actually talk to homeless people.
they took it from youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaMerHN2HSk
@ Dickhead: where does that sentence say that I assume all homeless people are black? It suggests that homeless black people are involved (there’s one on the video. I made the slightly more realistic assumption that there’s another one somewhere), but nothing more.
Rach: advertising works in those things but none of them matters until something measurable happens. Who gives a shit if I like Pret a Manger a bit more than yesterday? Or I feel quite warm towards Oxfam? But buy a sandwich or make a donation and things start to happen. Before then, nothing.
And yes, it’s the opposite of dehumanising. These people now have a sense of purpose. They can be of service, improving the lives of others, and that’s something we can all aspire to doing.
I think you mean offer a service
No I don’t.
We’re not related, other than in the slightly-rubbish-play-on-words naming stakes.
I take your point Ben, but you’re entering into a very dubious area when you get to the ‘words and concepts only mean what they subjectively mean to you in your own mind’ argument. Philosophically that may be debatable, linguistically too; but in the real world society functions through mutually recognised terms. That’s how language works for the majority of us.
Sure, a measurable result might be that the homeless people involved got some money in exchange for work. Such concepts as dignity, however, might not be measurable empirically; yet that doesn’t mean it’s not important. And it doesn’t make it okay that Clarence agreed to the project. Clarence is starting from a position of homelessness. BBH are (arguably) exploiting that vulnerability.
It simply wouldn’t be okay to use the homeless as wank machines, even if they and anonymouse are okay with it, because that is not as a society how we believe people should be treated. It would be degrading and offensive.
As for what I’ve personally done, well over the years I’ve worked on all kinds of charity briefs and produced several ads for campaigns and causes. I’ve also donated to reputable charities with no expectation of having a service rendered in return. And i’ve worked in a homeless shelter too. I’m not saying that to be pious; but one of the things I find objectionable here is the increasingly obnoxious tone of Republicans in the US that the homeless need to work before they should be eligible for help.
And no of course I’m not happy that people should go hungry providing my ‘conscience’ is clean as you suggest, (to imply so is pretty cheap of you and quite offensive too). But i think there are ways other than this initiative that would leave people with a cleaner conscience and still be of equal help.
It’s really tricky this one and is bound to stir the pot when it comes to moral standing. For me, I think it’s a great initiative that is trying to do something good at it’s very core. It might not necessarily be the finest execution right now, but it’s engaging and it’s making it simple for people to help in a new way.
If I think about folk that sell The Big Issue in the UK, it’s a really hard task to put yourself out there as a ‘seller’ when people perceive you to be a complete down-and-out. How many times have we all walked past or ignored them? More often than we stop. The people I’ve bought the magazine from have been the one’s who have been most engaging with their conversation or maybe showed a little something different in their approach to selling… but not everyone finds it easy to do. And imagine doing it when you feel (and are treated) like you’re invisible anyway.
What BBH has done has brought some element of dignity back to the transaction. The homeless folk can opt into wearing the shirt, and the passers-by can purchase their service. Consumers get what they want, homeless person makes a little money with little need to do much else. The homeless person doesn’t have to put themselves out on a limb, and there’s less guilt for just walking by… now it’s a commodity you want to buy. I think losing the personal interaction is the key negative at this stage (it runs the risk of making the homeless folk even more invisible), but I’m sure there’s room to develop the idea and bring more humanity to it.
I’ll also admit that I find it strange to think about a group of people stood around a homeless person with their heads fixed to their mobile screens. And I’m not sure that attaching a wireless hotspot to something that can easily move is the best idea either.
Ultimately, I think it’s noble to try and create/do something that makes a change for good and has a positive impact on people’s lives… And, whichever way you cut it, this sets out to do that.
Anonymice: you’re being very presumptious about the concept of dignity. We all do something for money. Who are you to say what does or doesn’t rob people of their dignity? Isn’t that assumption alone something which reduced dignity? Your attitude is remarkably condescending considering your charitable background.
Let people do whatever they feel comfortable with (be that wanking or holding a hotspot device) for money. How do you know they’ll feel any worse giving a handjob than many of the readers of this blog do when they smile through gritted teeth at some client suggestion that will leave them missing their friend’s birthday?
You can take what I’m saying as offensive if you like; that’s up to you, but I think your position as moral arbiter for society has dignity issues of its own.
@ Anonymice So the homeless people can clean your car’s windshield, sell newspapers and cheap socks, and lunch on your garbage but if they sell internet, and make a buck they are exploited, and dehumanized? Was somebody forced to do it? Was somebody intimidated or beaten?
@ ben I don’t know will it work but I think this is a good idea.
Christ almighty, I’m not putting myself forward for ‘position as moral arbiter for society’ Ben, I’m just saying i disagree with you on this particular thing. And perhaps on the concept of dignity too. There’s no need to rant at me. I think society has a duty of care to the least well-off and most vulnerable. I’m not sure that turning someone into a wi-fi hotspot and making them wear a t-shirt that reduces them to that is altogether something I’m comfortable with. It just seems a bit de-humanising to me. That’s all.
Ummm…
‘That is not as a society how we believe people should be treated. It would be degrading and offensive.’
Sorry if you think I’m ranting. That’s not the sound in my head.
“We all do something for money.”
Certainly, working classes engage in exploitation everyday by being forced into conditions where they must sell their labor (if this is who you are referring to by ‘we’). Of course, this is most starkly the case with homeless people who literally have nothing else by their capacity to work (in other words, no capital assets). It seems obvious this is why the campaign might be considered controversial.
I am wondering though about how is this different from Big Issue model? Being non-profit actually implies that it’s a better approach, but not without raising questions about content (selling Big Issue articles rather than surfing Pornhub) and also about BBH New York using this as a opportunity to promote themselves.
The final problem I’m thinking about would be based on the actual profits earned for the homeless participants and whether this could be turned into anything other than a moment of ethical consumption during SXSW.
Do you think Clarence gives a fuck about BBH and how much it’s promoting itself when he’s eating his sandwich?
Errr… But Clarence is not BBH’s target audience, surely?
People who are “offended” on behalf of the homeless treat them as sub-humans, as uncontrollable beasts with no will of their own, as degenerates. Somebody “MADE THEM” wear t-shirts, “TURN THEM” in slaves.
What you do is display your “sensitivity” but it’s nothing more than unprincipled sniveling.. the simple fact is that Clarence will eat tonight
We can all agree on the wrong – homelessness is not a good thing. The problem, at least from where I stand, is that we can’t agree on the right – what we do to ‘fix’ homelessness. So while we all argue about what the right thing to do is, nothing gets done. Good on BBH Labs for doing something. Even if that something doesn’t fix the problem, to me it’s far more valuable than a debate over whether an idea that puts money in the hand of the homeless is right or wrong.
Why is this different to The Big Issue?
Do any of you have a problem with that too?
Suppose he does. Suppose he sits their having been a hot spot all day he’s spent his money on some food and a drink and thinks, they’re taking the fucking piss them BBH bastards.
He’d probably make a good account manager. Whinge, whinge, whinge.*
*Attempt at injecting some humour.
Nothing wrong with a little exploitation for the sake of the all mighty dollar. If homeless chaps want to earn some cash for a little exploitation, that’s their right.
But, I do find it a little strange that BBH chose the line, “I am… a 4g hotspot.” Instead of a more empowering line like, “I am …. I run a 4g hotspot.”
I think we’re missing the real point here.
How fucking fast is the 4G?
I wonder if BBH Labs will take Clarence and his other 4G mates to Cannes when they go to collect their awards.
It’s nasty really isn’t it? It’s a clever clogs advertising stunt that stirs up a bit of controversy, gets column inches for the agency but is as shallow and aloof as the people who came up with it probably are.
I’m going to extrapolate and assume that the people who came up with this are a bunch of Nathan Barley type fools.
To say it gives homeless people work, food etc suggests that it is a realistic solution to the problem but it isn’t is it? So it’s just a stupid pointless elastoplast that gets in the way of anyone ever really doing anything lasting and constructive.
I’m not suggesting it’s a realistic solution to the problem of hungry/homeless people, after all, what is?
But is it any stupider than doing nothing? Than no sandwiches for Clarence? And would Clarence agree with you?
Could you possibly be – gasp – aloof?
@ the cynics – If you were to lose your job – shit happens right – and someone offered you a little somthing to tie you over – hey it won’t get you back to where you were by a long chalk – but it would chip in to some bills or put petrol in the car or stop you moping around the house watching day time TV – how would you feel about that?
Would you feel exploited?
And if I complained on your behalf (the worse sort of complaint) to that person for giving you a scrap of work because it wont solve your real problem would that be okay?
Something of a first, isn’t it? BBH accused of bad taste?
But I can’t help thinking that adland draws attention to a cause and direct marketing ensures the quids come in.
Eg. Saatchis have had NSPCC for aeons, done great work as we all know, but RAPP raise the money with d/m appeal mailings you wouldn’t wipe your arse on.
In the end, the homeless get publicity and cash-money in this instance, but who will maintain the donor’s interest in them? A long-term commitment is better than a one off donation, despite Freaknomoics podcasts.
Hey Anonymice.
We’re not related, but I wish we were.
I agree with everything you say. Using people this way is just not right. I don’t understand how it can be seen to be.
These are people in the lowest situation someone can find themselves. It’s appalling. And it’s solvable.
This, however, is not the solution. It lacks empathy. BBH could do something that really helps, they have the money.
Would we like it if David Cameron came up with it?
Would we? Really?
why is it okay for kiva to give housebound Bangladeshis a mobile phone and turn them into a village telco, but it’s not okay for a hobo to have a way to make money by providing a useful service instead of resorting to charity wrapped in a crappy second rate magazine distribution?
If you’re begrudging Clarence being able to feel useful to society and make money off richer people by selling something because you consider it demeaning you’re a bit of a twat.
“Clarence go back to the overpass and wallow somewhere where you never have to interact face to face with the freshly showered smartphone set. feel free to clog the front door to the 7-11 tho, i’m happing to throw my change at you out of pity, cause that’s not demeaning at all.”
You’re a bunch of cunts.
It’s better than “iHobo”..!
After further thought, I reckon my problem is that Clarence doesn’t need a sandwich.
Clarence needs a home.
This idea doesn’t do anything for Clarence in terms of getting him a home – as basic human right. In fact, it depends on him NOT getting him a home.
That’s the underpinning problem for me and why it’s inherently exploitative as a concept.
this seems to be one of those classic examples where political correctness gets in the way of a good idea.
why shouldn’t the homeless share in some of the SXSW spoils? What BBH did was make it okay for hipsters and digital whizzkids to hand over a couple of bucks to a bum in exchange for a service that they probably don’t need, but hey “when in Texas….” sure the wording on the shirt is probable offensive, but the fact is Clarence isn’t go to bed hungry. and surely that is a good thing right?
Really can’t see how it’s different to the Big Issue – same concept for a digital age.
@anonymouse: Clarence needs a sandwich.
@mouse – what BBH did really was offer part time work, wasn’t it?
They discriminated against people with homes offering work to those without. Weirdly they let them keep all their takings, rather than split them like most businesses do.
Having a home is not a right btw. It’s a good thing. And I think everyone should have one. But it’s not a right, say like freedom of speech, right to protest, protect yourself etc.
Clarence needs a job.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_housing
@anony – very interesting, thanks for that, I must confes I did not know.
Clarence needs a human rights lawyer, then he can have lots of things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights
What is the point in rights if they can’t be expressed, meaniningless really.
Our kids are gonna have us in court I reckon.
By giving some guy on the street a sandwich, this idea has probably done more for the homeless than any previous creative work.
Anything done before was just for awards. Period.
it’s pretty much the same as getting two tramps to fight over a fiver. Yes they may be willing to do it but it doesn’t mean it’s not degrading.
Can I have the last word on this?
The majority of the people involved with helping this cause had a history of substance abuse and a high percentage of those people came from the Downtown East side
The Servants of Hope is a non profit charity that has been helping the people of Vancouver’s downtown east side for the past 6 years. Alongside hot meals and warm coats they serve up a sense of hope and a chance at a new life. Below is a video link from Christmas 2012 over one hundred people came together to feed the homeless and do outreach we served over one thousand people that night
http://vimeo.com/38616528
Appreciate the recommendation. Will try it out.