Many people read the article titled “We're Blurring Out the Rag Trade in Gazeta Stołeczna”. Comments under the text and articles in the trade press quite clearly indicate what readers think about the author's idea and purity of intentions. Let me add my two cents.

First, if we're doing something - let's do it with our heads.

I look at the photo in the article in “Gazeta...” and wonder why the logos of companies that have their stores there were pixelated on the Galeria Centrum building? Could it be that Gazeta Wyborcza's logo is planning to disappear from the roof of their editorial building?
I also don't understand why H's advertisement on the Gallery's facade is bad - if my memory serves me right, the city issued a permit for its installation around 1997. And why the LG logo wasn't covered - only the Editor knows that.

Secondly, don't shoot yourself in the foot (unless someone enjoys it).

The press doesn't sustain itself on wonderful articles, but on revenue generated by advertising.
Let's not treat the Client like a child who needs everything pointed out - "don't buy there,
this advertisement is ugly" - nobody will fall for that.
Just as a reminder - there were times at Agora when only AMS showed positive results, and it was the money from outdoor advertising that paid the newspaper employees' salaries.
And for those interested - the facade of “Gazeta...” editorial office in Poznań.
Could there be advertisements on it?

Photo - Google Street View.

In fact, this article is part of a sequence of events that began when
publishers realized that client budgets aren't infinitely elastic.
This isn't a new problem. Let's go back to Warsaw in the second half of the nineteenth century.

Many titles are published in the city - including dailies: "Kurier Warszawski “, "Głos”, "Nowiny “, "Dzień”; weeklies: "Tygodnik Powszechny “, Tygodnik Ilustrowany”, "Przegląd Tygodniowy “and many specialist press titles such as "Gazeta Przemysłowo-Rzemieślnicza”, "Grafika “, "Gazeta Handlowa” and others.
Of course, there's no internet, television, or radio.

A formalized advertising market begins to emerge.
Newspapers start selling advertisements, the first advertising offices appear. The first advertising media also emerge. And here comes the first clash. It was about advertising columns, which were very well received by city residents - in 1890 there were 50 of them and more were being built quickly. Voices started appearing that they were ugly and defaced Warsaw, and advertising on them was highly ineffective. This is how the “Wędrowiec” magazine described outdoor advertising in 1894:

..."The population of large cities doesn't walk, but usually runs feverishly through the streets, rarely even glancing at an advertising column, let alone when the bill poster puts it on the column not from the sidewalk side, but from the middle, intended for carriages and cabs (...). An advertisement posted on a column would only be read by a city resident, and only of one city, while a newspaper advertisement goes to the whole country."

Another time one could read "Advertising columns in this form, as they were set up,
do not meet public needs and are a blemish on the city's appearance."

You must admit, not much has changed.

Another example, a bit closer to our times.
The famous "billboard affair", which the press was so eager to write about. It's 2006, a year after the presidential elections. What was this affair about? In short, it concerned suspicions of PZU financing part of Donald Tusk's presidential campaign.
Allegedly, this was supposed to happen when PZU, after protests from the Psychiatric Society, withdrew from the "controversial "campaign ‘Stop Road Lunatics’ and then supposedly sold the billboards for 3 percent of their value to a PR firm connected to a certain politician's son, from whom PO was supposed to buy them back....
I wonder about the name of the affair.
Why billboard? Why not, for example, electoral? What did billboards do wrong here?
Ah, freedom of speech.
Thanks to it, there probably wasn't a Gazeta Wyborcza affair or "and magazine" affair - just the Rywin affair.

The press usually writes negatively about outdoor advertising. This applies even when the newspaper owner also owns an outdoor advertising company.

I don't think this press behavior is a conspiracy.
I think it's part of the battle for a more favorable division of the so-called "advertising pie."
It's a shame this rhetoric lacks objectivity and class.