When Billboard Views Include Poisoning Trees

TalentZoo.com | Flack Me | Digital Pivot | Beneath the Brand

Archives | Categories

By: Dwayne W. Waite Jr.

There is an interesting legal battle brewing in Seminole country (Tallahassee, FL) between Lamar Advertising and a former employee, Robert Barnhart. Barnhart is saying that Lamar Advertising ordered him to poison trees that affected the view of its billboards around the area. Of course, since he was rising up in the company, Barnhart agreed to do so. In the latter years, when he hurt his back and was reverted to light duty around the company's warehouse, he and his wife talked about his activities and told his manager that he was no longer going to participate in such things once he returned to full status. Barnhart says that once the manager heard this, Barnhart was promptly fired and put on worker's compensation. Shortly after, Barnhart filed the lawsuit.

With the unfortunate reputation of advertising in the minds of consumers, this kind of nonsense — they would say — isn't the surprising part. The public would be more surprised that this has been brought out into the open. But what the general public isn't aware of is that foul play is not the norm (allegedly).

A billboard gets its value from its location and the eyes the company believes it receives. If there were natural obstacles in front of the locations, one would think that it would influence the cost of the boards, and therefore be an issue for Lamar Advertising. But to accuse a company that operates in over a dozen states of such a crime is interesting. One would think that since Barnhart is in fact going after Lamar Advertising, he might have a case, though according to Barnhart's lawyer, no date has been set yet for trial.

Now the question that will be posed in this post is not whether or not Lamar Advertising fired Barnhart for this offense. In the article covering the story, Barnhart disclosed that company executives came from a national convention of billboard companies with the substance Barnhart said he used to kill or deaden the growth of trees.

If this suit holds merit, and facts come out that this is normal practice amongst billboard companies, how should the advertising community respond? If the trend in the market is corporate social responsibility, how can they justify doing business with a billboard company (or companies) that may harm the environment?

The case has just been opened, and there is always the possibility that this could be a bogus claim. But, if it is true, are agencies and corporate marketers ready to handle this kind of situation? What an interesting argument! If there are people out there who have more insight on the billboard industry, please provide your input. Is this claim more bogus than accurate?

Hopefully an interesting conversation about this ensues. Looking forward to the feedback.

blog comments powered by Disqus

About the Author

Dwayne W. Waite Jr. is partner and principal at JDW: The Charlotte Agency, a marketing and advertising shop in Charlotte, NC. He enjoys consumer behavior, economics, and football.

Beyond Madison Avenue on