Ads on security bins @ LAX?
 

I just got back from LAX. T1 bins had some sort of ads in them (I'm too immune to ads to remember what they were). ... is this? Can we place an ad that says something about Kip?

I saw those last time I went through LAX...I think they were brought to you by the same geniuses that thought up the idea of ads on the little dividers that go between your groceries and the next guy's on the belt, or the ads over urinals. After all, it's just another place where we have to stand around for a few (or more) minutes, so we have time to read an ad, right? My first thought was, "that's annoying", and my second was, "but OTOH, that's clever".

I would prefer if they just cleaned those bins! I'm not going to be influenced by an ad in a bin.

I'm curious as to the content of the ads, as I haven't seen these ads. Since the security checkpoints are run by TSA, a Federal government agency, these ads should not be commercial ones...

If the ads provide a way for the TSA to suck more funding into that black-hole of an agency without raising our fees or taking more taxpayer money, then I guess I can live with it.

Now, if they are commercial ads, the idea of placing one critical of the TSA does have a delightful irony to it...

OK -- gonna' get legalistic for a minute --

If the airport authority is providing the bins, they are free to put anything on them they want -- even "Kip Hawley is an idiot!" This would be true if the bins were placed there as a courtesy and convenience item, much like baggage trolleys. However, the TSA would have us believe that the bins are "mandatory" for shoes and laptops, which removes them from the "nice to have category."

If the government is providing them to us with appropriated funds (i.e. tax dollars), the contractor providing the bins should have asked the government (i.e.: TSA) for permission to place ads on the bins. Of course, I would be smoking something if I believed this actually happened.

If the government bought the bins, advertising in theory would be no worse than a "Boeing" logo on the side of a B-52 or a "Lockheed-Martin" logo on the side of an Atlas-V used for a government satellite launch. It would be perfectly acceptable for the bin manufacturer to display their logo on the bin.

Advertising having nothing at all to do with the product manufacturer, I believe, presents some problems. First of all, by virtue of the bins being used at a government checkpoint for mandatory screening purposes, the TSA and the US Government are, in fact, endorsing the product that's being advertised on the bin. Second, the presence of advertising sends a perception of impropriety. Third, what's to prevent a competitor to the advertiser from suing the government, claiming they didn't have the opportunity to compete for advertising space on bins?

If I were an FSD, the negative perceptions created by all this would cause me to reject a request to put advertising on checkpoint bins. I haven't seen the bins with ads, but I would not want to even send the perception that the TSA endorsed Maxim, beer, Coke, cigarettes, junk food, condoms, or whatever else was on those bins. Would I expect an FSD to have these thoughts for even a nanosecond? Of course not.

Wonder what an ad costs? Does FT have any funds? To buy an ad they have to look at all day:

If you think Kip Hawley is an IDIOT, check out flyertalk.com

Oops.. my bag of fluids leaked.

I think that this can be read two ways and one would not be positive about us here. :D

the ads on the bins at LAX (TBIT) .. as well as other terminals, to the best of my knowledge have a "Rolodex" ad on them.