I’ve been catching Inner Link buses this week – rather unusually for me but that’s how things are at the moment. Generally I have found them to be pretty fantastic: incredibly frequent, pretty fast (especially now that there’s no longer the enormous detour down into the city between K Road and Grafton Bridge) and quite consistent with their timing. The buses themselves are also really nice and flash – although like most of the new NZ Bus buses the aisle seems to be just a little too narrow for comfort.
But what’s really driven me crazy is this advertisement for Unitec, which plays an inane, kind of hip-hop piece of ‘music’, while showing bits of construction going on around Auckland. And the bus plays this over and over and over and over and over and over again. On my journey home this evening I counted 9 plays of this one advertisement – and that’s on a trip of little over 10 minutes in duration!
I don’t mind the silent advertisements on the bus screens. I like the information maps showing me where the bus is, the cameras showing what’s going on from different points of view. The little snippets from the Herald website. But please, noisy advertisements on a bus is like torture – there’s no escape, there’s no way of blocking it out and it’s just a really really horrible way to treat one’s customers.
Really there’s absolutely no need for bus advertisements with sound. It’s just plain rude and shows no respect for the passengers. You can do better Auckland Transport and NZ Bus.
Processing...
Not a pleasant experience, a bit like the volume increase that TV stations use in New Zealand when the ads come on – even the USA’s FCC places noise controls on advertising in that country! As a side point, why do universities/polytechnics waste so much money on advertising anyway – no one is going to see a bus or tv ad and think right I’m off to do that basket weaving course – or do they….! Maybe that money could go into transport…
Here you go: for constructive Unitec ad feedback! Director “Customer Journey”
http://www.unitec.ac.nz/?DDA3874E-145E-6A3C-6E4F-279755E3876E&ID=652121dd-72bf-4f6c-ade0-58de81141608
A stupid name. It makes him sound like a bus conductor.
Yes, yes, yes a thousand times yes! The NZ Bus ad was bad enough. I could tolerate the Dafodill Day ad…. barely… but the Unitec ad playing every minute on my 15 minute bus ride into town almost drove me insane. If the advertisemet makes you want to smash the televisiion screen its showing on and burn down the institution that funded it, I’m not sure if its really doing its job. Killing the music would be a good start and don’t play it so damn often!
Absolutely agree.
I was on a bus home early from work yesterday (major fatique from racing at the weekend) and having that ad play about 10 times between K Rd and Newmarket absolutely entirely and utterly did my head in. I was >< that close to going and smashing the screen with the miniscule little bit of energy I had left.
Absolutely agree. What’s worse is when the ad plays repeatedly, while trapped on a Link that sits for 5-10 mins to keep to schedule while trying to get to work. The ad is fine…for a different audience. Ironically, the NZ bus ad felt like punishment for taking public transport, or was simply preaching to the converted. Gave me bad, bad feelings. I try hard to catch the 962 or 966 from Ponsonby to Newmarket to avoid the Link. Otherwise I take to walking the 40 mins.
The noisy advertisements are the #1 reason why I won’t catch the Skybus from the airport in Melbourne. (I get a taxi to a suburban train station and go from there. Although the taxi drivers are usually livid they get such a short fare from the airport and no amount of customer relations training can stop them from being arseholes about it. So that sucks as well. Go for the 2nd closest station and pretend to live in a house nearby.). Airport rail makes so much sense in Melbourne. And it’s not like you can just walk out of the airport there since access is on the freeway, unlike in Sydney or Adelaide.
‘Airport Rail makes such sense in Melbourne’ yeah sure does, shame then that it’s actually illegal. The sneaky private interests behind the PPP highway to the airport added a clause to their contract preventing, specifically, any rail line to the airport, or at least guaranteeing vast compensation if it were built. Oh and the corrupt or at least conniving officials signed it. Don’t you just love how the private sector really views competition?
Be very wary of PPPs creeping into the transport sector here, they are just a means to defraud with a document. And, like asset sales, the insertion of profit takers with special interests [and lawyers] into the process of providing vital services they also seriously compromise society’s ability to plan rational and equitable systems.
Yeah PPPs are basically just another word for dirty accounting tricks when it comes to transport.
Brizzie has had some disastrous PPP schemes for its new tunnels. And now the Queensland government is sacking 14,000 because it claims it can’t balance the books. Will overspending on the RoNS lead to public service cuts in NZ, leading to a hard few years of high unemployment, like Queensland probably has in store?
Did you know there’s a bus from Melbourne Airport to Broadmeadows train station? Cheaper, happy taxi drivers. Win-win!
Cool Thanks. Next time I’ll get the bus.
I really can’t believe they are going out of their way to make is less pleasant to catch the bus. What will be the next step? Fire all the cleaners and rent out the back-row to the homeless overnight?
In reality we’ll probably see an expensive ad campaign say how quick, effecient and nice it is to catch public transport. Which will probably cost 50x the income they make from playing these ads.
Fully agree with you Mr A. Up in Japan and Korea where I do a lot of work in the transit media space, TV screen displays inside trains and buses have no sound at all. Even the large AD TV displays in major stations in the Tokyo / Osaka areas, have no sound. In Singapore, they did trial sound with the in-train TV displays back in 2006 but MRT got so many complaints that it was soon back to pictures only – its stayed that way ever since.
TV-based transit media is at its most effective when there is no sound – attention is better drawn to the images on-screen in that state.
I’m surprised that iSite Media (Infratil-owned company) who have implemented and manage these bus screens are using sound. They should know better.
Michael Sandel’s “What Money can’t Buy” is a fantastic book, and has a lot to say about intrusion of the market into spaces where lessens the product in the process. Certainly applies in this instance.
Maybe we fight back with a guerilla sticker campaign like this:
http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2012/03/05/guerillas-on-the-london-underground/
I have not experienced the “joys” of that particular advert but I personally loathe the fact that many buses play a radio station feed. Surely if the customer wants music, they should bring their own device (and therefore choose what they listen to). If it is for the drivers, well why pipe it through the bus at a very distracting volume? And shouldn’t they focus on driving? (not wanting to diss drivers or make their job harder). I am pretty sure that for every customer who enjoys it, there are many more that hate it so I am really at a loss as to why they do it. I have nothing against visual advertising but please keep the sound away.
Agreed. Radio should not be piped through the bus PA system, nor should sound be coming out of bus TV screens designed for service info and advert display. In Asia at least, this is a mandatory clause in the service contract the bus company has with the relevant PT authority.
Auckland Transport has contacted NZ Bus who told us “the Unitec advertisement was incorrectly scheduled to play every five minutes rather than every twenty minutes. All Link buses were updated as they left the depot this morning. The volume on the screens will also be turned down a bit”.
Thanks Sharon, but I hope that you will take for here that all sound ads or ‘entertainment’ are an unwelcome intrusion into the PT environment. And should be avoided at all cost.
Sharon, volume completely off please, not down a bit. This is how bus interior TV screen-based media operates overseas. Auckland should be no different.
Well not everywhere. I was once subjected to a very loud Spanish version of the film Finding Nemo. I briefly contemplated jumping from the bus. Best we not head down that slippery slope. Similarly, airlines, including AirNZ, that play music loudly and incessantly, just wind up already weary passengers. On my recent train trip from Narita airport to Tokyo city tv ads were screened, but they never felt intrusive or exhausting because there was no sound.
Not sure where you got loudly and incessantly on Air NZ from there mate, unless you had chosen to listen to some music on the seat back entertainment system yourself. Sure, there is light background music when the pre-flight instructions are being announced but unless my memory is fading really badly I don’t know where you’re getting that idea from. That also applies to the other dozen airlines I’ve taken.
Hi Simon, not your mate…but on a recent flight for boarding it was bad enough that the passengers sitting near me were discussing it, and eventually asked the cabin crew if it could be adjusted. I think Air NZ is fantastic, and fly them a lot domestically and internationally, but this was not the first time.
Sorry if the mate bit upset you. As I’m not sure what part of the flight experience you’re going on about. I certainly thought for the majority of the flight it was quiet and I will concede I’ve only taken domestic services so far this year. I hope you did forward a flight comment through to the customer support people as they do read and take onboard (especially if enough people say the same thing) pax feelings. If you don’t say anything, the airline won’t know.
Have to say that the latest flight safety videos crack me. Ed O’Sullivan is usually awesome, but he’s just grating on that.
When digital media was first introduced into transit networks in Japan back in 2002, much research was done pre-launch on rail user preferences: screen size, screen placement, sound, content presentation etc. It was quickly determined that sound detracts from the visual experience and thus from day one, no in-train digital media systems have sound. Ads played on in-trains DM systems in JP are subtitled or recut if they werent specifically made for in-train display to begin with.
Yeah that’s the great part of the Japan mass rapid transport system Rob. The noise at the main stations in Tokyo…not so great! If people had an issue with the link noise, they would struggle to put up with the cacophony (and it is that) of noise at the stations. It became so much of an issue that when I was last living there (4 years ago) there was a Close-up Gendai (like our Close-up after the main evening news) special on it on the state TV channel NHK.
No worries, Simon. The airlines could just keep the volume very low or off during boarding and unboarding. Especially for international long hauls when passengers may be 1) anxious or nervous about flying 2) exhausted from their previous 2, 3, or 4 flights 3) just weary from international security and all that it entails. We’ve gotten a bit off topic, is it still considered Auckland transport if we’re flying from AKL?
The tv screens, like those introduced in grocery stores but subsequently removed, (yay!) are a distracting annoyance. Worse yet, this diverts funding that could be used for something useful, such as fleet maintenance, or increasing the wages of drivers or other bus service staff.
Better yet, the tv screens and audio could be used to assist those with hearing or vision impairment. For example, before each stop the name of the next stop could appear on the tv screen. In Amsterdam, and in many cities, buses have screens that clearly indicate the route, and each individual stop.
The Link buses’ screens do indicate the route, each individual stop and also information about transfers or places of interest near a particular stop.
Not consistently, and not clearly. This is what clear information looks like: http://intrinsicstrategy.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/BusDisplay.jpg
Well we’ll have to agree to disagree. I think they show it regularly and consistently enough. I totally agree about the sound but I think you’ve gone into nitpicking territory!
I don’t mind picking nits if it improves the quality of the service, for everyone.
All In-train digital media systems in Japan show the names of the next 3 stops and the time remaining to reach each stop. The screens are normally mounted just above each door and recessed into the carriage wall moulding. Journey location status is updated every minute. The entire line map is also displayed every 2-3 minutes with a greyed out section showing where the train has come from and a list of all stations on the line the train will stop at. 10-20 second ads are played in between the line map status and time to destination status displays. More recently, JP in-train DM systems have moved to 2 15-17 inch adjacent screens per door (in the case of the Narita Express and JR West [Osaka / Kansai region] trains, roof mounted screens at regular intervals along the length of the carriage) with one screen playing ads, news headlines, weather info and the other showing route / journey status info.
Thanks Rob. That’s what I’m talking about. After weeks of international travel on many forms of PT, on my first day back to work via the Link I was greeted with the UNITEC ad coupled with a lack of relevant info. The comparison was pretty stark, and not in a good way.
Let’s use more appropriate language, and strongly urge that the “torturetainment” or “torturetisement” be sound free. Interestingly, the informational maps and news clips are silent. Perhaps the measure of useful information is its that sound is not required to spread the message?
Correct. For digital transit media systems, sound detracts from rather than enhances the visual message. iSite Media should know that.
In terms of bus advertising, people may switch off and not notice visual adverts, the sound can gain there attention and make them notice…its obviously doing its job, cause everyone is noticing the Unitec ad, right?
Good point, we sure are noticing, but for the wrong reasons. I noticed, and vividly remember, the Air Turkey ads I saw over 2 months ago on the Narita-Tokyo train because they were visually well crafted. And my lasting impression of those ads is positive, as opposed to my annoyance at the UNITEC ads. I worked at UNITEC and know they have great programmes, and the ad is good, but the audio attack has put me off both UNITEC and the LINK. That’s just all around bad marketing, and I’m not alone in thinking this.
Can’t have been that vivid cos the name of the airline is actually Turkish Airlines! Also working in airline reservations I can tell you a thing or two about trying to actually make a booking which includes a flight on them and getting a response to your request for a seat(s) and then not even be able to get through to their call centre after a week of waiting for a response and even re-requesting! Definitely one of the most difficult partner airlines to deal with along with the Chinese ones. I have heard that they have quite a lot of new a/c though and quite a good in-flight experience.
You and some others might not be, but who is there target audience? I’m thinking it would be the younger generation coming out of High School, as an educational institution that is. The music and Visual composition definitely relates to the younger generation very well. I certainly liked it, however I do agree they have gone overboard with the play back, and anyone will get sick of anything when it’s played that much! I hate hearing it now only because I’ve been blasted with it constantly.
But I have always disliked NZBus for their attitude to Aucklander’s in general, snapper being a prime example, so it wouldn’t be because of there play back of the ad.
I think you’ve got a point. If I’d only seen it once then it would’ve been fine, but 10 times between K Rd and Newmarket (also I doubt Sharon’s 5min thing – it was literally ad – Herald story – ad at one stage) I was over it and wanted to throw things.
Good point about target audience, for whom I think the ads are probably good. But I’ve noticed that the high school kids are busy talking to each other or are generally headphoned and engaged with ipods or smartphones It’s old schoolers like me who either read or look out the window to watch the world go by that have to listen.
I applaud Unitec for realising the obvious market that they are able to target on PT. Is that not a great sign of how far Transport in Auckland has come from the last few years? Transport advertising used to be based on getting adverts on the side of buses so all the cars could see them, now our institutions realise that there is a huge opportunity to advertise inside the bus as well.
I hope but I doubt, that the money from these adverts are supplementing the profitability of the routes, and therefore lowering the required subsidies to the companies providing the service??
I do however agree that the advert is well over-used, and should really be played at a maximum of once per entire route, and the sound should be turned down, but I don’t agree with turning the volume off if it is helping to keep our subsidies down. If not then get rid of them! (even if the route is currently profitable, increasing more profits should help keep subsidies of other route going down, from a practical point of view. Not sure how the system actually works compared to should work.)
The claims of “scheduling error” seem a little phony. On the City Link, the ads are timed to be played when the bus is in the proximity of certain buildings, so you get one at Britomart, one at Deloittes, and several further up Queen. There’s no way they’re meant to be played every 20 minutes.
Hi guys, sorry the ad played more than was planned. As you know we have checked with the bus company and it has been fixed up so it doesn’t show as often and is quieter. Thanks for all your comments and feedback here. If you have any more comments on the campaign, please do let us know on makeit@unitec.ac.nz – we’d love to hear your thoughts…
Unitec, you dont need sound at all in your bus ad. It has already detracted from your message and you’ve had to scramble to go into damage control. As a transit media marketer, I can assure you that no-sound will ensure your visual message gets across in a postive light to your target audience.
Totally disagree, Sound is good, almost necessary for that video. If there was no sound I would not have paid attention to it at all. I thought it was a great video composed with a good sound track. The only problem is it was played to often, and slightly loud for the older generation.
What was that movie called with Tom Cruise with all the gadgetry and the conspiracy theory plot?
Oh yes, Minority Report.
Joshua, I believe you might have given us a report from the minority.
For me who’s gone the last 21 years without listening to commercial radio and can’t watch TV ads I know I’d rather unobtrusive advertising. In fact I’d go on to say, I’d rather nil advertising, including on the outside of buses.
Of course people don’t want advertising shoved in there face, however in the reality advertising works to draw attention to products and get branding out to the public, it is also a very important revenue for certain businesses to offer lower price or ‘free’ services. If advertising helps companies boost profits, which allow them to say upgrade their bus fleet, then why not?
The way I see it, it’s a good way to reduce subsidies if used right, let’s put it this way, if you had the choice would you pay $15.00 for a bus ride from Onehunga to Britomart on a average bus, or would you listen to the odd advertisement but pay $6.00 for the same ride on a better quality bus. Might be a bit of an extreme example but you get what I’m hinting at?
I think I know what the majority of Public Transport users would rather, albeit they might not be the ones on this blog.
To be quite honest, being continually subjected to sound pollution like ads and the driver’s choice of radio station would be a factor in driving me away from public transport. At least in my car I have a choice. Surely AT should care about providing a good customer experience for people in PT. As for the argument that it is what attracts the “young people”, most of them seem to be listening to their own music on their own device. I suspect it will just encourage them to turn the volume up which can’t be good for their hearing
Well, if the sound levels aren’t TOO high, you are at least able to plug in your MP3 player / Ipod, whatnot…
But if you are just wanting to quietly zone out and read your book…….? One of the things I like most about PT is the ability to use the time on something more productive and enjoyable than driving. It is almost like AT sat down and said “how can we make the customer’s PT experience as unpleasant as possible?”
Consistent lack of customer focus…. I’m with you, no aural assaults please, if I want that I’ll bring my own! But mostly I wanna read, the great luxury of being driven.
I’ve taken the bus quite regularly and never heard the drivers playing the radio, is it cause I’m part of the younger generation and don’t pay that much attention, or is it only the odd driver and I’ve been rather lucky?
Ritchies and Birkenhead Transport play the radio quite often – NZ Bus not very often.
It depends on the route, company, and bus drivers. My regulars on Birkenhead and NZ Bus don’t play anything, but others do.
Although…I recently had a driver who was wearing headphones. I was still so jet lagged from recent travel that I couldn’t be bothered following up.
The only non offensive radio station/music genre/advertisment jingle is silence.
I arrived back in NZ one morning on a flight from Britain about 3 years ago only to be greeted with the AIrport Bus driver’s VERY LOUD radio all the way into the city. As I sat there enduring this tirade I wondered what others on the bus thought as no doubt they were as tired as me. What a poor welcome too the country! Since then on the same buses I have noted the loud advertising emanating from the bus advertising system.
Last week I traveled on a Howick & Eastern bus and was treated to the drivers idea of a good radio station loudly played through the buses speakers.
These are all negative PT experiences and should be stopped.
Another negative in the drive to extract advertising revenue is the ‘bubble wrap’ advertising stuck to the outside of the windows to give the ‘all over’ billboard effect. It may look good on the outside but from inside looking out it is, to say the least, irritating as to see clearly out results in blurred out of focus vision. Again another PT negative. Whilst I recognise advertising can be used to offset the running costs it should not come at the expense of the user.
Birkenhead Transport don’t need on bus advertising.
Oh man, don’t even get met started on that external wrap advertising. Is it so wrong to want to see out of the window and watch the world go by?
A further observation.
Over time the design of PT has led to quieter engines, damped road noise and eliminating rattles to give a pleasant travel environment. Why do some seem intent ruin all this only to add noise back into the equation!
Bus transportation could be a pain, but sometimes its the best solution, unless your looking into overseas car shipping , which can be very expensive. Sometimes you just have to suck it up, and deal with the local culture/tourists. The advertising can also be annoying. Transportation varies from country to country.
Michael, your troll advertising is even more annoying than the noisy bus adverts and wrap advertising.
You know, this gives me an idea. As many of us have pointed out, advertising can provide extra income to operators, reducing the need for subsidies. So, fair’s fair, how about we extend the principle to cars?
It’s simple: mandatory in-car and on-car advertising! A billboard would be mounted on the roof and another above the back bumper. The rear passenger windows and rear windscreen would have an advertising ‘wrap’. Meanwhile, inside the car we’d put screens on the back of the front seats, while the front-seat passengers would have an audio loop playing radio ads every time the car stops, plus every few minutes while driving.
Obviously, the ads would be inspected and changed every time you got a new WoF. There’d be a $25,000 fine for tampering with or disabling the equipment.
We’d give people a discount of $100 or so on their vehicle rego, and the government would keep the rest of the money to be gained, which would go towards reducing the subsidies for roads and parking.
Nice try,
I know what you trying to say however it’s not a simple case of comparing apples with apples.
Also think of the increased environmental effect of having billboards mounted to the car, increasing wind drag and therefore increasing fuel consumption.
In all seriousness, advertising on Public Transport is only ever going to be able to reduce subsidies on the running costs of the vehicle, be it the train or the bus or the tram. These cost are already individually meet by the car owners. If the car owners want to reduce their running cost they are more than welcome to stick advertising on their own cars. For subsidies on roads (which buses also use) there is billboard advertising, which is already used. Parking subsidies we need to sort out, however advertising in parking buildings etc could be used if it helps.
Obviously it’s not a serious proposal. Although in real life, a fair few taxis have billboards on them – the extra income must pay for the extra fuel, at least. But most people choose not to make a bit of money by having advertising on the outside of their cars: which is my point. Bus riders don’t want to have ads plastered on their ride, either, let alone have ads play at them while they sit on the bus. People usually value freedom from ads more than advertisers are willing to pay, if they have the choice. By having ads on the bus itself, you’re taking away that choice.
You’re right that buses use the same subsidised roads as cars, although they do use a lot less of them per passenger. And all of the roads our buses will ever need have already been built: all the new roads are to satisfy the demand for cars. But there’s no public transport equivalent to the vast amounts of free parking provided for cars. In that sense, advertising on the outside of cars makes a lot more sense, as it’ll still be effective while the car is parked.
But really, why the link between subsidies and ads? Using ads to reduce the subsidy for bus services is just using ad income rather than rates income as the subsidy: it’s still being subsidised.
Advertising income is not a subsidy, rather a form of sales. You are effectively using your built up customer base to offer companies an opportunity to sell their products. Most major companies have a advertising budget, and the idea is to offer them the better opportunity than the competition.
I totally agree buses don’t use as much per person subsidies on the roads, the point is they use subsidies for running costs, which is not fully covered amongst other costs, from fares. Hence the subsidies. Although these subsidies are well justified, the less money subsidised the more available for investment. Where a private vehicle has it’s running costs fully supported by the owner of the car.
To me parking and roading costs are totally different to running costs, and all need to be approached and justified in there own respect. I would have to disagree with you on the Bus riders not wanting advertising. Sure they would love to have no advertising and pay no extra for the ride, but the two are not mutually exclusive, if you have no advertising you need to pay more for the ride. Simple. Same goes with the cars.
I also disagree that all the roads buses will ever need have been built, in-fact I can think of a few ATM that should be high on the agenda, e.g the NW Busway, the AMETI which is currently being built, although the bus lanes that should be incorporated is up in the air ATM, the extension on the Northern Busway. There are more Bus Lanes needed throughout the city which involves planning, and re-organisation and re-marking of roads. Plus more…
The ad income is a subsidy. The income doesn’t have to be spent on transport at all: just because you sell ad-space on a bus, doesn’t mean you have to spend that money on that bus. Council chooses to spend the ad income subsidising the service (that is by letting the operator keep that income, meaning the operator can charge lower fares), rather than on rate cuts or free swimming pools or whatever else. The question of whether to put ads on buses is whether Aucklanders value the income we get from having advertising more than the cost of being subjected to those ads: it doesn’t have anything to do with the totally separate question of whether Auckland should pay for certain public transport services.
I guess I don’t share your attitude towards the the inherent difference of operating costs. I have a car, I pay for petrol. I don’t have to pay to store it on the public street in front of my house. Both of these are operating costs as far as I’m concerned: the only difference is the cost of one of them doesn’t fall on me.
I’ll agree AMETI is needed and hasn’t been built (though a Southwest Rail Line would be better still). So I take my statement back. But while the NW busway is a good idea, it’s only because the NW motorway is full of cars! If it weren’t, the buses could happily run along the existing motorway. This is true of almost all bus improvements: the only thing we’re giving them is a lack of cars.
(Sorry, ‘whether Auckland should pay’ should have been ‘how much Aucklanders should pay’: missed that when rewriting)