'Homeless Hotspots' Won't Continue After SXSW Trial

The N.Y.-based advertising agency BBH Labs sparked strong debate this week with its "Homeless Hotspots" initiative, a program that set up outposts of homeless people to sell Wi-Fi access at SXSW.

The agency ran the initiative as a trial at the Austin festival, during which concert-goers were encouraged to donate $2 for every 15 minutes of Internet usage. If successful, the agency's plan was to set up a similar program in New York. In response to the controversy, however, those plans have been halted, the New York Post reports.

"We have no definite, specific future plans yet, in New York City or elsewhere. This was an initial trial program," Emma Cookson, chairperson of BBH New York, told the news source. "We are now listening carefully to the high level of feedback, trying to learn and respond, and we will then consider what is appropriate to do next."

Several media outlets that saw the endeavor as exploitative, including ReadWriteWeb, which called it a "blunt display of unselfconscious gall."

But others, including several homeless people who participated in the program, saw it as a positive initiative.

Mark Horvath, founder of Invisiblepeople.tv, which gives homeless people nationwide a voice, interviewed a "homeless hotspot" as well as the creator of the initiative. Horvath called the measure inventive, pointing out that innovation is often something homeless advocacy nonprofits lack. He hopes it might spur more creativity in tackling this issue.

"I think the idea is brilliant, and it's a new idea in a nonprofit sector that is void of any new ideas, especially in tech," Horvath said. "...I don't see homeless hotspots as any kind of solution, but it may be the catalyst to an idea that will be a solution."

The New York Post points out that the dispute may lie in the fact that what works in one city doesn't work in another.

"New York is a whole different attitude," Long Island commuter Jimmy Chin, told the New York Post. "You can talk to the homeless in DC or in Texas, and what might work there will have a completely different effect here."

To get involved in the fight against homelessness, visit the Coalition for the Homeless.

Comments

[th3ophilos]

02:39 PM on 07/30/2012

I do not understand the "It is degrading/objectifying" argument.

As a poor college student I am occasionally hired to stand on a street corner holding a sign, and I don't complain about being objectified as a pole...

I am getting paid to provide a service, just as these homeless dudes were.
They even got to chat with folks (and had their names on their shirts!).
Sounds like a great temporary employment to me!

[assatashakira]

09:08 PM on 03/16/2012

I like the idea of giving homeless people a job, like the idea in Chicago where they sell a newspaper, but this has a few problems with it. Like treating the homeless as pieces of equipment and not real human beings, though I suppose it is a step up from how society normally treats them.

[Justa Vet]

04:02 PM on 03/16/2012

As usual the only people that got hurt but all the adverse publicity were the homeless that were providing a service and getting paid. Now I wonder how many will be back out aggressively panhandling????
Why cause an uproar over an experiment that was working and that the homeless employees were enjoying? They were meeting people, getting their story out, networking, with the possibility of improving their situation.
Shame on all of you that were upset by this. I would have welcomed the chance to make some cash and get myself in the public eye.
Who are you to say that this was a bad thing? You have an over-inflated sense of self worth. This was a radical experiment that may have helped one of these individuals get out from underneath their present situation.
By the way, I am homeless and would have welcomed a chance to do this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Debbie Cerda]

04:43 PM on 03/15/2012

Kudos to these guys, I should hope that this project is a way to engage with the homeless community that are often ignored on our streets. I've assisted with staffing an arts festival in downtown Austin where we couldn't get enough volunteers to staff street closures so homeless individuals where paid reasonable wage to do so.
What we found was not only would these people show up in droves extra early once they found out that we had available work, but also that I could not get some of the guys to take breaks because they were so fearful that we would "replace" them and they couldn't earn the full amount. It wasn't until 6 pm that folks were willing to quit -- in time to cash their check and get in line for entrance to the shelter. Out of 20 plus people, I only had trouble with two people -- a young woman who became intoxicated and another who abandoned a remote but non-critical post. Much better performance than I get with young college student volunteers at other events!

[beenzrgud]

05:50 AM on 03/15/2012

This is a good initiative which gives a homeless person a chance to make some money which they otherwise wouldn't get. The article mentions that this is in the non profit sector so I'm assuming that all profits go to the homeless.
Problems may arise in the future if these types of ideas become just another way of exploiting the vulnerable, of making some rich guy even richer, so it will need careful monitoring.

[ThinkinPerson]

03:35 AM on 03/15/2012

Understandably, the people were happy to have some work, and how often do companies hire homeless?

Still, what irks me to no end is all those geniuses drove to work on the public highway built with taxes just like should have happened with the internet.

It irks me that these people are then sent out to sell what we have already paid for?

S. Korea is a model of internet infrastructure and imagine, with all the businesses we have, innovative people, if we only had equal access to the most important highway of our day!

[JohnSawyer]

06:00 AM on 03/15/2012

Yes, the right tells us that business does everything better than government, but the government developed the Internet and put the initial hardware into place. When businesses got involved, they provided slow, expensive service, didn't plow enough of their profits back into the system to increase connection speed and lower costs substantially at a pace that they could have, etc.

[Wayne Hustis]

12:00 AM on 03/16/2012

No, the government developed ArpaNet. Private industry telcos (AT&T/Bells) developed the backbone infrastructure the current internet uses. All of that hardware? Paid for by evil private industry. For a profit (gasp)!

If you think the original handful of computers running the first version of tcp/ip could support the modern internet.. well.. no. You would be mistaken. Plus http (web) was developed by CERN, not the govt.

But you're right, lets let the government run everything, they've clearly shown themselves to be competent and there's no way they'd ever abuse their power, right?

[Wayne Hustis]

12:10 AM on 03/16/2012

Unfortunately, your tax dollars did NOT create the internet. Sorry. It did help fun the concept of the internet, as a means of providing communications in the event of a nuclear war, but the internet you're using now? Yeah all of that was paid for by private industry. And yes they are going to charge you for it. That's how capitalism works. If you'd like to try an alternate system I hear they are doing wonderful things over in Cuba.

[dirtydog1776]

01:54 AM on 03/15/2012

What we have hear is some scabby little arbitrary, vindictive social worker afraid that they might lose their job or power over others.

[dirtydog1776]

01:50 AM on 03/15/2012

Are white T-shirts the best color for homeless people?

[areyoukiddingme2012]

11:10 PM on 03/14/2012

“Demeaning” is beyond me. They provided a service equivalent to having a dead battery on their cell phone and asking to borrow one to make an important call. That's all

In the marketing business, it is VERY COMMON to have what are called “Street Marketing Teams” 99.999% of the time, they hire very attractive women to give out samples to promote the Product.
See Red Bull:http://americajr.com/pictures/detroit/airraces/may%2031%20010.jpg

Where is the “Moral Outrage” women picked SOLELY on their looks?

Finally, FedEX offered a promotion, where someone work a *WINTER TYPE JACKET* that allowed people to hook up to a USB port and allow a recharge. Where is the “OUTRAGE” in that?
That lady could have QUITE LITERALLY died of Heat Exhaustion Where's that outrage?
http://instagr.am/p/IC35c5nJnj/

Now, AN IMPRESSIVE “bullet point” goes their resume. They can LEGITIMATELY say:

* Hired by National Marketing Agency as a Street Ambassador to represent new, innovative technology. Provided “Human wireless roaming hot spot technology” to ensure proper amounts of accessible bandwidth were dispersed across the over populated city during the South by Southwest Festival (SWSX).

I'd question how many "Morally Outraged" people donated to these individuals. This WAS NOT done for any Company---it simply was a TEST---All money goes DIRECTLY to the individual.
I'd call every single person (“Morally Outraged”)--a HYPOCRITE—should they not donate to INDIVIDUAL person on the site.(the person gets 100% of the money).
http://homelesshotspots.org/

[areyoukiddingme2012]

10:58 PM on 03/14/2012

It is ABSOLUTELY ABSURD people are outrage at this. This provided the Homeless an above minimum wage $50/6-hours=$8.33hr (GUARANTEE) and let's assume they were able to “sell” one unit per hour (units are $2/15 minutes), *They * get to keep the money raised. At one per hour, that's $10.33 an hour. (by the way, the Marketing company wanted to pay them *MORE * money than they gave them, but the shelter turned them down as they felt it was “too much” and might be counterproductive.

Furthermore, this was completely “vetted” by the shelter,and they were OVERLY enthusiastic to participate. In years past, homeless people were used to build the stages/rigging—HARD MANUAL LABOR---while I don't believe doing manual labor is a bad thing, I DO BELIVE, these guys (and one woman)---would *MUCH * rather walk around Austin, TX—meeting new people, offering a needed/appreciated service. AND, when all the Media TURNED on the Homeless, the Agency called a meeting with the Shelter and Homeless Volunteers. The Homeless volunteers were told if they wanted to, they could take off their last day of work AND WOULD NOT BE PENALIZE AND WOULD STILL GET THEIR FULL DAY'S PAY. 100% of the group wanted to continue working. (degrading work, huh?) And tell RUSH TO STICK IT--when he claims "homeless are simply lazy". THE FOOL!

[Jessica Ann Stallings]

01:43 AM on 03/15/2012

1) I think most homeless would *MUCH* rather have ANY kind of job--whether it was hard labor or selling Internet access for $2/15 mins.

2) Of course the shelter vetted it. Most homeless shelters charge per person, per night. The one where I live charges $2 a person each night. They have to be in by 6 PM (unless otherwise OK'd by the shelter), attend a nightly church service, and be sober. If they can't afford the $2, then the shelter puts them to work. If they can't abide by the rules, then they don't get to stay.

3) Rush may be a "donkey"--but he's not entirely wrong. I live in a literal homeless hotspot--research Eugene, Oregon. A large percentage of the homeless here ARE lazy; most of them drifters, druggies, alcoholics, or kids who couldn't play by their parents' "tyranny."

4) Were they being taxed? If not, this IS a form of exploitation.

[trailerguy]

10:13 AM on 03/15/2012

Untill recently most of the homeless i came into contact with were either junkies or mentally ill.

[dirtydog1776]

01:50 AM on 03/15/2012

Please learn to write more clearly and get the Caps Lock key fixed on your keyboard.

[BryanNagy]

06:42 PM on 03/14/2012

I think this is terrible! The agency definitely crossed ethical lines with this marketing ploy.

More on my take:

http://bryannagy.wordpress.com/2012/03/14/homeless-controversy-brewing-at-sxsw/

[Anthony Joseph]

05:32 AM on 03/15/2012

we don't care what your take is, or about your blog.