I was wondering why and who banned Billboard cars in 1938? While looking at this time line this struck me as odd. What business is it to the AAR that companies are advertising on the side of freight cars? If it was the rail roads they could have made some money on advertising.
http://www.macrodyn.com/ldsig/wiki/index.php?title=Timeline-Freight_cars
Pete
Billboards weren’t outlawed; they were severely restricted. The problem was shippers payng to ship freight in cars that advertised the competition’s product. Say you are shipping a carload of Comet cleanser, and the railroad spotted a car carrying an Ajax ad. You wouldn’t be very happy about it. Cars can have billboard ads but those cars can not be used to carry any other product. Tropicana uses billboard cars; so do many other companies.
I have a different version of history.
The federal government (ICC) “outlawed” leased billboard reefers based on complaints from railroads.
To understand the issue, one needs to keep in mind that railroads received tariff charges from the shippers, and the railroads paid a per/mile charge to the car-leasing company for all mileage, empty or loaded.
The railroads were disturbed by perceived unfair competition, especially about the leasing companies’ practice of rebating to shippers some of the mileage income earned (from the railroads) by the cars leased to shippers. Railroads contended lessees enjoyed an advantage because they made a profit from mileage allowances partly offset, or even exceeded, what they paid in leasing fees.
Railroads also argued that privately owned or leased reefers made railroad operations more complicated and less efficient because they had to be returned empty to the shippers instead of being available for backhaul traffic. Also, shippers used their leased cars, but railroads were required to have their own reefers on hand during peak traffic periods, resulting in the under-utilization of their reefers during non-peak periods.
Although not a major concern to the ICC, railroads asserted car-side advertising was unfair competition because it was a service provided to shippers without cost. It was thought some shippers cluttered up the railroads by routing their cars to maximize advertising exposure regardless of the destinations.
Thus, in 1934 the ICC ruled that “…no gift, gratuity, or part of the earnings from mileage payment …” could be paid to shippers by car owners. Without this advantage, many shippers stopped or reduced their use of leased reefers.
Thus, it was primarily the railroad’s objection of unfair competition by the car-leasi
That makes a lot of sense to me, and explains various covered hoppers such as Pillsbury and various salt companies. Thanks
Tom
Tom, I don’t see what an archaic ruling on advertisements on railroad cars has to do with cars displaying the owners’ name on them.
Mark
A lot of people get confused by the term “billboard”, thinking it meant that a company paid a railroad to let them paint an advertisement on a car. That didn’t happen. The term “billboard reefer” came from cars in the 1890’s-1930’s that were painted by the owner or later the company leasing the car with the company name and other info on them as if they were a big rolling billboard.
Actually the first two responses are both right. The problem the railroad had is shipper A asked the railroad for a reefer, and they provided one prominently lettered for shipper B. Shipper A refused the car, so the RR has to go get another one. Plus as noted there were numerous deals where leasing companies got a better shipping deal than a regular car would have gotten. It gets pretty confusing, you could write a book about it…in fact, someone did. [:)]
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1930013221/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller=
No, it doesn’t explicitly. The ICC ruling did not prohibit all use of shippers’ names and emblems. Name of shipper and company emblem could be displayed if used in assigned service by a single shipper.
Mark