Sunday 13 May 2012

WHY-FI?

 Originally published March 16, 2012, here


 by

It may sound like something from one of Charlie Brooker’s dystopian satires, but recently marketing agency BBH Labs New York strapped Internet transmitters to homeless people and sent them out as “wifi hotspots”. And we all have to live with that.

Clarence Jones, 54, was such a participant. He was made homeless – or “houseless” as he prefers to call it – by hurricane Katrina. During the “charitable experiment”, he was paid $20 a day for six hours work plus the PayPal payments for those using the wifi – or “him”. Because as well as the transmitter, he wore a t-shirt saying “I’m Clarence, a 4G hotspot”.

To be clear: the t-shirt did not say “I’m Clarence, and I’m running a 4G hotspot by wearing a transmitter, but I am also a person with organs and a personality, who walks around and says things.” His t-shirt, along with all the other houseless participants, said “I am a 4G hotspot.”

A wave of criticism has since crashed over BBH. Clarence told the New York Times he didn’t feel like he was being exploited, “It’s a job. An honest day of work and pay.” Despite Clarence’s approval, there is overwhelming opinion that the scheme, while earning homeless people a much-needed $200+, was exploitative and dehumanising. 

Is it exploitative? Surely a scheme designed to find (short-lived) earnings for the down-and-out, funded entirely by BBH with no profit for them, should be applauded? Can it all really be contemptible because of the wording on a t-shirt?

There is no reason to doubt the intentions of BBH. Well-meaning as they are, some have defended them by comparing the homeless hotspots to the people employed to stand in Piccadilly Circus holding up signs that say “THEATRE TICKETS “. But those signs don’t say “I’m Malcolm, a ticket machine”. Why on earth would it claim Malcolm is a ticket machine, just because he is employed by an organisation that provides theatre tickets for a fee? That doesn’t make him a ticket machine. His name is Malcolm. He has legs and preferences. Malcolm is not a ticket machine, which is the main reason no one has called him one.

So why is Clarence a wifi hotspot? In what world is it ok to call Clarence a wifi hotspot, but not call Malcolm a ticket machine? In an ugly world, where Malcolm is a person, an employee with a salary, and Clarence is homeless and will get what he’s given.

Another problem with the model is the potential for cringeworthy behaviour. Technology is frustrating; no matter how incredible the feats of a new gadget, within seconds we feel we are owed them and throw tantrums when they break down. The merest blip in the Internet service has even respectable adults squawking with irritation. Homeless hotspots not only have the ability to get up and walk away, they have the right to. How soon before an inbox-crazed Blackberry basher screeches at Clarence to stay where he is until she finishes her latte?

 The main defence put up by BBH is that the scheme was an attempt at “modernising the Street Newspaper (like the UK’s Big Issue) model”. Generally, taking anything from print to digital is seen as a modernisation, but they forgot one thing – the content. In other words, the point. The Street Newspaper, The Big Issue and the like, are written by homeless people. It gives them a voice and gets their message out. The wi-fi home page has no links to articles written by or about the homeless. It is not a platform.

BBH’s Saneel Radia said street newspapers weren’t an effective model because “thousands of people walk by street newspaper vendors ignoring them”, and many of those who do ‘buy’ a paper give money and let them keep the paper. This “ineffective” model has been replaced with wi-fi and the exact same outcome – people giving money to, but not listening to the voice of, the homeless. At least the newspaper model gave people a chance of hearing the message.

BBH’s argument is that the experiment has been a success because in light of the controversy caused, “these people are no longer invisible”.  But “being” a wifi hotspot does not get the homeless message out there – unless the message is “I am homeless and therefore treated and ignored like an object”. Is this the discussion BBH wanted us to have? Has the experiment achieved that very aim? Has the scheme of homeless dehumanisation in fact been subversively brilliant?

We’ll let you figure that one out.

No comments:

Post a Comment