I deliberated about posting this because of the very bad language in one of the photos. So if you’re easily offended stop reading and leave the page now…
Then I reconsidered when I realised that there’s actually an interesting point in here somewhere.
So here’s the story: my walk to work is made hazardous by dog mess liberally scattered around the pavements. I’m sure many of you suffer the same thing. Here’s some ‘fresh’ evidence from this morning:
The council try to persuade dog owners to not let this happen by giving them bins, and putting up signs.
Often the signs seem to be pretty ineffective. And like lots of the messages that we see every day they just fade into the noise and clutter of the urban environment. Over time they get defaced and fade away. If the message ever worked its impact gets diminished as it’s gradually torn away:
I was slightly shocked when I saw this on the pavement yesterday:
I was shocked mainly because of the use of very strong language. But you know what, I noticed it. I really noticed it. And I bet the people who walk their dogs round there noticed it too. Especially the c***ts who let their dogs shit on the street and don’t pick it up.
And my point is:
- Councils have to play by the rules. They use recognised placements for their signage: lampposts, bins, etc. They use tedious ‘council-approved’ language: “fouling”, “provided”, “prosecuted”, etc.
- ‘Consumers’ can use whatever language they like (as evidenced above). They can use whatever media they like. They’re just not bound by the same set of rules. Which means they can create much more compelling messages.
Sound like a familliar situation?