Posts Tagged ‘office’

Hey, is That Notorious “Bluewolf” Salesforce DreamForce Chalk Ad Company Making Amends with SFMTA Bus Advertising?

Thursday, October 8th, 2015

IDK.

Here’s your background.

I’ve never seen an ad like this afore:

7J7C7595 copy

How long did it take to create, one wonders? About two seconds?

No matter, I’m sure SFGov is starting to think of the bluewolf as a good corporate citizen now…

Dreamforce Nightmare: Ohio-Based Advertising Firm Glee-fully Mocks SF – Boasts of “Earned Media Impressions” from Illegal Graffiti

Tuesday, September 15th, 2015

Here’s a typical tweet about yesterday’s L’Affaire du Bluewolf:

“Why not tell what you think of his blithe, scofflaw attitude in smearing his graffiti all over SF?

And here’s the write-up by Joe Garofoli: “Tech company defies San Francisco graffiti ban at Dreamforce.”

Now let’s hear from the people at CivitasNow, the company what promised to clean up the sidewalks of SoMA and the Financh yesterday afternoon:

You see that? They think this whole sitch is funny.

I think I see the problem here, I think the CivitasNow people are thinking they might get a ticket for two or three or four or five figures, but, IRL, what they might end up with is a settlement for six or seven figures if they continue to embarrass / piss off / mock area residents, such as a Mayor, or a City Attorney, or even a Benioff or two.

Hey CivitasNow, hey Bluewolf, do you think there might be a reason why some DreamForcers covered up some of your numerous chalk ads?

Perhaps you all have reached Pariah status, but you don’t even know it?

Marc Benioff’s DREAMFORCE 2015 Starts Off on the Wrong Foot: Illegal Ads from “Bluewolf” Mar Sidewalks of SoMA

Monday, September 14th, 2015

[UPDATE 2: Tech company defies city ban against putting logo on sidewalks]

[UPDATE: This webpage (“Dreamforce Swag”) was just pulled by “Bluewolf.” Here’s what it used to look like:

Capturefsfffsssd copy

So that takes care of that.

So, no you didn’t have permits, right, Bluewolf people? Or if you do, then share the info – it sure would interesting to see that. Thank you, drive through. END OF UPDATES]

Via KatieOnViolin, you can’t do this:

Capturefsff copy

Oh, what’s that, it’s only temporary? Well, that’s what they all say.

And there’s this:

“Citizens can obtain permits for sidewalk stencils, but there is no legal means for a company to advertise using sidewalk stencils, Gordon said. Still, many companies throughout the years have created guerrilla marketing campaigns on city sidewalks, including Zynga and IBM.”

What you bluewolfers ought to do, you know, wikiwiki, is come on downstairs, buy some brushes at a CVS, and then start scrubbing…

Another Illegal Chalk Ad on the Streets of San Francisco? – HTC ONE – When Will Our Corporate Overlords Learn?

Friday, April 17th, 2015

We’ve been through this kind of thing before. If City Attorney Dennis Herrera discovers this, then whoo boy, there’s going to be trouble for somebody.

As captured by BloomReports today:

CaptureFSFSFF copy

Look Who Else was Doing Chalk Ads on the Sidewalks of San Francisco: Paramount Pictures – “What is CLOVERFIELD? 1-18-08”

Monday, February 9th, 2015

This one flew under the radar, AFAIK:

GO8F6579 copy

Seven years later, here in 2015, you can’t get away this kind of thing anymore…

Uber Beats Lyft Again! – They Both Put Illegal Chalk Ads on Our Sidewalks, But Only Lyft Gets Busted – Plus, a Shakedown

Wednesday, February 4th, 2015

A couple years back I passed by this scene on Market, so then I contacted the Uber people by email on my cell…

uberr1a

…and I was all, “Can you do that? I don’t think you can do that.”

Why? Because it’s a chalk ad on a Frisco sidewalk and that aint kosher. I mean, I didn’t know for sure, maybe somebody had approved this and the Uber people had permits, who knows. I was simply “issue-spotting,” as they say.

So then, a half-hour later, the Uberers had these ads hastily obliterated, more or less, as best they could.

And that was that, back in 2013.

And now comes Lyft in 2015 with hopsc0tch chalk on the Streets of San Francisco:

Lyft copy

Except that SFGov is now lowering the boom on Lyft.

(And there might be some shakedown to take money from Lyft to give it to those ugly “SF Beautiful,” people, who are now infamous for suing the City and County of San Francisco? That sounds wrong.)

Anyway, Uber beats Lyft, once again.

Here’s a Clue About How Uber / Uber-X was Evil Going Back Two Years Ago – Marketing on Market Street

Wednesday, December 10th, 2014

Here’s why I’m not an employee of the Uber:

Cause like every day I’d be saying, “Can we do that? I don’t think we can do that. Can we say that? I don’t think we can say that.”

I’d be a big Captain Bringdown / Jiminy Cricket.

Like here, a couple years back, on Market. I passed by this scene and so then I contacted the Uber people by email on my cell…

uberr1a

…and I was all, “Can you do that? I don’t think you can do that.”

Why? Because it’s a chalk ad on a Frisco sidewalk and that aint kosher.

I mean, I didn’t know for sure, maybe somebody had approved this and the Uber people had permits, who knows. I was simply “issue-spotting,” as they say.

So then, a half-hour later, the Uberers had these ads hastily obliterated, more or less, as best they could.

Ah, memories…

“Panhandle Police Altercation” – The Difference Between Being Found “Not Guilty” Vs. Being “Found Innocent”

Thursday, November 6th, 2014

Well, here it is.

Capturefdffsff copy

The problem with this Hoodline headline is that Dude wasn’t “found innocent.” IRL, the jury ruled that he is not guilty.

In other words:

Juries never find defendants innocent. They cannot. Not only is it not their job, it is not within their power. They can only find them ‘not guilty.'”

Am I being too picky here?

Sorry.

YOU MIGHT BE A GADFLY IF … the SF City Attorney’s Office Makes a Webpage Just for YOUR Records Requests

Tuesday, October 28th, 2014

Like this:

Capturefsffffs copy

Dennis Herrera Throws Down: “Vows Aggressive Defense of the Prop B Waterfront Development Voting Measure”

Tuesday, July 15th, 2014

All right, it’s on, the defense of Prop B (2014) is on:

“San Francisco’s participatory waterfront land use decision-making has included voters, elected leaders and appointed commissioners for decades, City Attorney argues

SAN FRANCISCO (July 15, 2014) — The California State Lands Commission today sued San Francisco to invalidate Proposition B, an initiative measure passed in the June 3 election that requires voter approval for waterfront development height increases on property owned or controlled by the Port of San Francisco.  The legal challenge filed in San Francisco Superior Court contends that the California legislature specifically intended to prohibit local voters from exercising authority over bay and coastal public trust lands, strictly limiting management of state tidelands to designated trustees.  In its legal action today, the State Lands Commission argues that the sole trustee responsible for sovereign tidelands in San Francisco is the city’s Port Commission.  The State Lands Commission is additionally seeking a preliminary injunction to bar San Francisco from enforcing Prop B.

In response, City Attorney Dennis Herrera issued the following statement:

“For decades, land use decisions involving San Francisco’s waterfront have included voters, elected leaders and appointed members of our Planning and Port Commissions.  It’s a participatory process that enacted a comprehensive Waterfront Land Use Plan in 1990, developed a showplace ballpark for the Giants, and continues to protect an urban waterfront that is the envy of cities worldwide.  San Francisco’s deliberative decision-making process on waterfront land use has never been successfully challenged, and I intend to defend it aggressively.  With today’s lawsuit, the State Lands Commission seems to have embraced the notion that any local initiative — and, by extension, any land use regulation approved by a Board of Supervisors or Planning Commission — affecting port property is barred by state law, and therefore invalid.  That view represents a radical departure in law and practice from land use decision-making in San Francisco and elsewhere.  While the City must certainly honor its obligations as trustee in managing public trust property, it is a legally and practically untenable position to argue that San Francisco’s voters and elected officials have no direct say over how our city’s waterfront is developed.”

(more…)