Okay, I get it. Most of the world runs on corporate sponsorships now. In the modern age there is a cost of doing business and some trade-offs are necessary in just about every walk of life. This is not only true for private entities (including small blogs like ours), but also in major cities the world over who face staggering maintenance costs and limited revenue in the form of tax dollars.
But during my recent trip to Venice I saw one advertising placement that goes beyond anything I would have ever thought as being acceptable- so much so that I am compelled to share it today.
The Rialto Bridge, Sponsored by Diesel
The Rialto Bridge is currently wrapping up a major restoration project, and the city of Venice sold advertising on one of the most beautiful bridges in the world in exchange for the 5.5 million Euro cost. This is not just any advertising, such as the common (and small) banner that hangs off the side of just about any bridge in the city, this one is much worse as it is literally the face of the Rialto Bridge.
I'm going to pause here and point out the fact that I'm actually okay with the Rialto Bridge being sponsored by companies willing to help it maintain its beauty for future generations. What I'm not okay with is the fact that the advertising that is currently in place ruins all of the beauty of the bridge they are trying to preserve.
This ad is not the only one either.There are large ads on the inside of the bridge too, such that you cannot physically go through the Rialto Bridge without seeing at least two Diesel ads (unless you stared at your feet the entire time), if not many more. So not only were all of the gorgeous views of Venice were completely blocked off, but any of the iconic spots you wanted to enjoy on the Rialto Bridge were replaced with Diesel ads.
I hate to break it to you, but had this been my first trip to Venice on a once-in-a-lifetime trip, I would have been very, very pissed off (and I'm normally pretty tolerant of scaffolding projects). Luckily this was my third visit, and I am only just moderately angry.
For those who did make it to Venice and couldn't see the iconic views of the city from the bridge, this is what you missed:
How Much is the Cost Per Visitor Really?
The part that infuriates me the most about this is that sponsorship for a project like this, in a city like Venice, seems like it could so easily be avoided.
Tourists already pay several Euro per night in hotel taxes, and when you factor in the 1.5 year restoration project, and 20,000,000 annual visitors, the additional tax needed is something around 20 Euro cents per person for an entire visit - not just hotel night. So a nightly hotel tax of roughly 5 Euro cents per person per night would've covered this restoration, likely with a bit left over.
I don't know about you, but I'd give a Euro to help restore the Rialto bridge. I'd give you five more for other restoration projects going on in the city just because I love Venice. I highly doubt an extra Euro on a hotel bill will deter any of the 20,000,000 annual visitors because, lets face it, you're already spending thousands of dollars to visit- what is one more?
But no, its much easier to take the lump sum from a major corporation (for a really pitiful amount in my opinion for the ad space that was sold), sell out your city's most iconic attraction, and flag all available spaces with their brand's message. That makes total sense.
Sorry Diesel, even though I was not one of your shoppers to begin with, I certainly won't become one now.
