Gone, Boston, gone, iPod ad is gone...

Jonny Evans
|
November 10, 2009
|
Share

Recall the story of the giant semi-legal iPod ad on the side of a Boston building? A story which seemed to hint at all sorts of political intrigue as Apple attempted to secure permission to carry the gigantic ad...

Well, just to keep the near 4,000 readers of the original report in the loop, news today is that that self-same ad is gone, torn down, evicted by Boston’s City fathers to become an ad-based blip in history. In some weird decision (when you consider the way ads are all over the place these days) the state’s Outdoor Advertising Board deemed the ad illegal because it advertised a product the storage business whose building the ad was mounted upon didn’t sell.

This summer, the property owner and deal broker paid a $110,000 fine, then obtained a one-year city permit extension. Less than six months later, the sign is down - at least for now.

Interestingly, no one seems to know why the ad - which ended up with a special one-year permission granted to it - has gone.

Comments (6)

Vaganza (not verified) | November 10, 2009 - 4:19am

"Advertising Board deemed the ad illegal because it advertised a product the storage business whose building the ad was mounted upon didn’t sell."

 

Any billboard would violate this because billboards don't sell anything but advertising.  Thank goodness Times Square is not in Boston I guess.

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | November 10, 2009 - 5:11am

The board must be serious anti-fanboys

expatinasia (not verified) | November 10, 2009 - 5:23am

"Any billboard would violate this because billboards don't sell anything but advertising."

Apparently, you do not know the difference between a "billboard" and a "building".  Yes, both words begin with a "b", but the similarity ends there.

Vaganza (not verified) | November 10, 2009 - 5:36am

The billboard is ON the building, frankly this is a common practice all over the country, thus my statement about Times Square.  

expatinasia (not verified) | November 10, 2009 - 5:23am

"Any billboard would violate this because billboards don't sell anything but advertising."

Apparently, you do not know the difference between a "billboard" and a "building".  Yes, both words begin with a "b", but the similarity ends there.

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | November 10, 2009 - 6:14am

There was a lot of questions surrounding how this got approved in the first place. Boston (and Massachusetts in general) does not like billboard excesses (i.e. RT 95 through the Carolinas) and is very strict about what kind of signs can be put up. This sign was illegal from the beginning and shouldn't have been approved; that was the whole argument. Then, because of the Mayoral elections, the newspapers here got wind of this and began to link it to the current (and now 5 term) Mayor implying that there was some kind of behind-the-scenes deals going on that allowed this billboard to go up.

Either way, I don't think Apple really needs to advertise so heavily in Boston; it's preaching to the choir.