Garza - Post #2
Ok. Wow.
I never thought about this solution before, but it looks like a really nice tradeoff. Adzookie says that it will pay the house owner's mortgage every month for as long as the home styas painted.
Think about this for a sec. This could be an interesting strategy for the firms to use and actually give them leverage in the competition. Nike, Sprint, and etc... Advertisements make it possible for the consumers to know what's in the market and what goods and services are there. It's a great way to draw our attention to a certain product.
Well, if I'm in a pickle, I think I'll do that for a while. How about you?
If I owned a $200k house, im not sure I would want it painted like that, and I cant imagine that a neighbor of a house like that would be thrilled either. Who wants to live next a rainbow colored house? I dont think it will be long before people start complaining about the effect this will have on their already declining home values. That being said, if i am struggling to keep my house, I would let someone paint it lime green if it meant I could keep my home.
ReplyDeleteWhen I read the article post, I pictured houses painted over by big corporations... interesting that this is about a business run buy a guy that employs only 8 people. (Although I'm sure it won't be long before big corporations pick up this idea...)
ReplyDeleteThis is not a matter of home values for "other residents" of the neighborhood in which these billboard homes will be painted.. its a matter of QUALITY OF LIFE! Billboards are bad enough when they're lining the highways and cities.
Clearly, advertising shares the blame for getting us into this mess, by convincing everyone that they needed to pursue a superficial American dream through images and popular media. So now let's prey on the most vulnerable people and USE them to advertise?? Well sell even more, extend credit debt even farther--heck, maybe even the debt of the residents we're supposedly trying to help.
"A great way to get our attention to a certain product"? If great = effective, maybe. But in this case, great also equals pervasive and awful.
I know, Richard. I feel the same way too.
ReplyDeleteToni, since when the quality of life triumphs the necessities of life? That's where you are wrong because there are some people that are in a pickle and WOULD DO ANYTHING TO HAVE A HOUSE. Have you forgotten that there are homeless people too? They, especially people from the Northside, might not give a crap about what the house looks like, but at least, they have/appreciate having a roof over their heads.
Also, don't blame on advertising. It's not even human at all. That's like saying I'm blaming guns because they kill people. Guns don't people. People with guns kill people. Same thing here with advertising.
At least companies that want to use those kind of advertisement are saving lives and allowing kids to enjoy their bedrooms instead being on the streets living in the box.
As for (credit card) debt, I think these homeowners already know what debt is really like, and I don't they want to experience that again. So this idea is actually nice for a while...
When I finally am able to take the huge step toward having my own home, I want it to be my home and only mine. That means I will choose my own decorations.
ReplyDeleteSure, it would be nice to have the mortgage paid for you, but if you're not willing or able to take up the responsibility of paying it yourself then you shouldn't have gotten the house in the first place because that's how the whole economic crisis started!
Very nicely said, Sam.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sam, too. This is just another example of the mentality of taking the easy way out when it comes to buying a house. Resorting to these kinds of measures to finance one's home shows how little people today value the process and the experience of homeownership, unlike previous generations.
ReplyDeleteI also wonder about the financial implications of this scheme. Doesn't this give people an incentive to have high mortgage payments, since the ad company will be covering the monthly payments anyway? So what happens after the one-year contract is up and these people are stuck with these payments that they aren't used to paying for?
One part of me says this is a really cool idea, the other parts screaming what is happening to our society. From a business and advertising standpoint this is a new unique way to get your name out there. It’s no different from painting your vehicle or trailer to promote a business. This is definitely expanding the communication lines and ways to market to people. However, this shows how desperate Americans are. We have gotten ourselves into a mess that we don’t know how to get out of. This free mortgage will only last up to a year. If people use that year to save money and get on track, then it may work out. For the majority of the people taking this offer they will just spend this “extra” money on other “necessities”. Another problem is that there is not a lot of work involved from the homeowner’s standpoint. The house will be painted by someone from the company and they will most likely be doing the touch ups. Also I agree with Richard, homeowners need to be respectful to their neighbors and by advertising using your house it may create conflicts.
ReplyDeleteEven if the economy was doing well and we were not in a housing crisis I am not sure I would be for advertising on houses. I give them points for uniqueness and finding a new market, but I think this will only bring more demise over time.
I think it will be interesting to see if this idea takes off. From the article, it sounds like a lot of people would be interested in using their homes as advertisements to finance their house. However, depending on which types of regulations the neighborhoods have, this might not even be allowed. (for instance, I live in a neighborhood where houses are not allowed to have garages that face directly out to the street because it lessens their appearance. A house painted that way would surely not be allowed) Furthermore, based off of their budget, the business really can't afford to paint too many houses at this time. It is possible that other businesses may try to copy this idea, but I think that this will be nothing more than a passing gimmick that is able to help a few people out of tight spot.
ReplyDeleteI agree whole heartedly with Sam and Kelsey. The whole ideal of home ownership, at least for me, is the idea of having something or someplace that is truly yours. The idea of using it as advertising space for some outside company detracts from that sense of ownership. I would take a small house that I could truly call my own over a mansion with a Nike symbol on it any day.
ReplyDeleteI am on both sides of this article. Part of me realizes that these "painted" houses will get annoying to the community surrounding it, and I personally would not enjoy coming home and seeing my house look like that. On the other hand, if it was a necessity to paint my house with advertisements in order to keep my house, I probably would do it. Can't say I can make an opinionated decision on this one, I guess I'd have to be in the situation.
ReplyDeleteMy immediate reaction was that this is a very clever idea with big potential benefits for everyone. I do agree that there is the issue of impacting quality of life for neighbors, but honestly is it that much worse than the guy with the twenty plastic flamingos out front? I agree with the point that remaining in a good home in an affordable manner is much more important than having it be fully "yours." We already stock our houses with brand names and logos, cloth ourselves in intentionally displayed insignia, park our nice car with the famous brand name out in front for the neighbors to see... at least in this way it's for a worthy and financially responsible goal.
ReplyDelete