- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: BR Coca Cola Sign Covered
Posted on 5/24/14 at 2:57 pm to Roscoe
Posted on 5/24/14 at 2:57 pm to Roscoe
quote:
It's a shame that the new owner of the old richoux's building decided to unplug and cover the repaired coca cola sign on the buildings " grand opening" simply to squeeze some money out of coke.
No, its a shame nobody proof read that article before posting it with all the typos.
0
Posted on 5/24/14 at 3:51 pm to Roscoe
quote:
For more than fifty years, a massive antique Coca-Cola sign has overlooked Third Street in downtown Baton Rouge, serving as an historical reminder to the rapidly changing landscape.
But on Wednesday, the building owner blanketed the well-known sign, demanding money for the ad space for the suddenly in-demand building.
I guess Wally's lease expired and the place was finally sold.
Also, there is no such thing as a free lunch. I Coke wants to advertise then pay the owner of the building whether the sign is historical in nature or not. I'm failing to understand the logic folks are trying to use to excuse advertising fees from being paid. Since when does the longevity of a sign's placement give it a free ride?
Posted on 5/24/14 at 3:55 pm to PokerPlayingTiger
quote:
Since when does the longevity of a sign's placement give it a free ride?
60+ years ago Coke's advertising was these light up signs that they provided to property owners selling their product. Basically the same thing as you see today with the Coke banners at little league parks, church fundraisers, etc.
With the design of the piece, and the impact Coke has had on Americana Art and history...this isn't really an advertising sign.
Posted on 5/24/14 at 3:56 pm to PokerPlayingTiger
I don't think Coke cares.
It's the downtown folks that like the 'cool' factor of the sign.
They want people to think that downtown is big enough to support Coke actually paying money for that sign, like its Times Square or something.
It's Baton Rouge! Downtown ain't all that and it's an ad. Get over it.
It's the downtown folks that like the 'cool' factor of the sign.
They want people to think that downtown is big enough to support Coke actually paying money for that sign, like its Times Square or something.
It's Baton Rouge! Downtown ain't all that and it's an ad. Get over it.
This post was edited on 5/24/14 at 4:21 pm
Posted on 5/24/14 at 3:59 pm to Supermoto Tiger
quote:
I haven't been keeping up with all this and don't know the new owners. But from what I've been reading, it looks like the new owner of the building wants Coke to pay him today's market rates for advertising since the sign is attached to his building. He doesn't have to OWN the sign. It's just like a LAMAR billboard. The land owner doesn't OWN the billboard - but, does receive compensation from LAMAR for the billboard being placed on his property. I really think the new owner is 100% within his rights to do so. I'm not defending one side or the other. The way I see it, Coke should step up and pay a monthly rate to advertise from a sign ATTACHED to his property. OR, the Arts Council should just move the sign (as the sign's owner) to another location.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, you take your logic and rationality and get right the frick out of here.
Posted on 5/24/14 at 4:01 pm to Traffic Circle
(no message)
This post was edited on 8/31/19 at 2:59 am
Posted on 5/24/14 at 4:41 pm to Roscoe
quote:
Therein lies the problem. He bought the property with the understanding that the sale did not include the sign. Per the seller, this was expressly negotiated and the new owner paid $15k less with the understanding that he was not getting the sign. The new owner is now trying to attack an agreement between the prior owner and the Arts Council on a technicality to squeeze money out of Coke when he knows full well he himself didn't pay to buy this sign. Had he done so, then I would have absolutely no issue with his stance.
Sounds to me that the new owner of the building clearly understands that he doesn't own the sign. Whether he owns the sign or not, he has every right to charge "rent" or "advertising fees" from the owner of the sign. If owner doesn't want to pay then they can remove the sign from his building and take it to a property in which they have the right to place the sign. Unless the purchase agreement clearly states that the owner of the sign has the right to keep it atop the building free of charge then neither the Arts Council or Coca Cola have an legitimate argument.
Posted on 5/24/14 at 5:27 pm to PokerPlayingTiger
quote:
Sounds to me that the new owner of the building clearly understands that he doesn't own the sign. Whether he owns the sign or not, he has every right to charge "rent" or "advertising fees" from the owner of the sign. If owner doesn't want to pay then they can remove the sign from his building and take it to a property in which they have the right to place the sign. Unless the purchase agreement clearly states that the owner of the sign has the right to keep it atop the building free of charge then neither the Arts Council or Coca Cola have an legitimate argument.
That's a nice argument, but that's not what the article says. According to the article, the owner of the building contends he owns the sign.
Posted on 5/24/14 at 6:58 pm to PokerPlayingTiger
quote:
Unless the purchase agreement clearly states that the owner of the sign has the right to keep it atop the building free of charge then neither the Arts Council or Coca Cola have an legitimate argument
Totally agree.
Posted on 5/24/14 at 7:05 pm to Roscoe
canes
Posted on 5/26/14 at 1:24 pm to dgnx6
https://theredshtick.com/2014/05/26/an-open-letter-to-michael-crouch-downtown-building-owner/
Really appears one of you wrote this.
quote:
Mr. Crouch:
Go frick yourself.
I know that may seem rash, blunt, and crudely hyperbolic, but I mean it. Go frick yourself.
You’re the kind of a-hole who gives capitalism a bad name. The shite you pulled last week with the venerable, last-of-its-kind Coca-Cola sign sitting atop your building at the corner of Florida and Third in downtown Baton Rouge is such a dick move, Gordon Gekko wants you to tone it down a notch.
Really appears one of you wrote this.
Posted on 5/26/14 at 1:30 pm to Signal Soldier
quote:
The shite you pulled last week with the venerable, last-of-its-kind Coca-Cola sign sitting atop your building at the corner of Florida and Third in downtown Baton Rouge is such a dick move, Gordon Gekko wants you to tone it down a notch.
That's right, Venerable
Great work though.
This post was edited on 5/26/14 at 1:37 pm
Posted on 5/26/14 at 1:41 pm to Signal Soldier
"Am I calling you a sign terrorist? Well, you assumed control of it, put a bag over it, and say you won’t release it until your demands are met.
You wonder why people like me are so cynical? You wonder why our best and brightest are leaving every fricking year? You wonder why so many think the notion that Baton Rouge is “America’s next great city” is total pollyanna horseshite? It’s because this town has too many people like you, people with more money than sense and class. "
You wonder why people like me are so cynical? You wonder why our best and brightest are leaving every fricking year? You wonder why so many think the notion that Baton Rouge is “America’s next great city” is total pollyanna horseshite? It’s because this town has too many people like you, people with more money than sense and class. "
This post was edited on 5/26/14 at 1:43 pm
Posted on 5/26/14 at 2:03 pm to The Third Leg
Do y'all not know that red schtick is satire?
Posted on 5/26/14 at 2:04 pm to Sprocket46
Absolutely
Posted on 5/26/14 at 2:05 pm to Sprocket46
quote:
Do y'all not know that red schtick is satire?
Yes, and that article was not.
Posted on 5/26/14 at 2:06 pm to monsterballads
No fricking way that's serious
Posted on 5/26/14 at 2:10 pm to The Third Leg
It's absolutely serious. That building owner is a dickhead. He doesn't own the sign but he wants compensation for it.
Posted on 5/26/14 at 2:11 pm to monsterballads
Oh, brother. frick me silly.
Posted on 5/26/14 at 2:12 pm to monsterballads
No, its not serious. Use your heads people.
Page 6 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News