The daily had an article on the Escambia County Commission considering whether or not to bring in house ECAT’s bus advertising program: “ECAT bus ads debated at committee meeting.”
Deborah Crossland, owner of Transit Advertising Limited Inc., whose contract ends Dec. 31 and is fighting the move told the BCC that she has brought more than $213,000 in revenue to the county in the past five years.
That’s only $42,600 a year. Can ECAT make more bringing in-house? Probably.
She complained that she has advertisements in place until at least November 2011.
Not the County’s problem. Transit Advertising shouldn’t sold past their contract date. According to the article, Crossland said about extend her the contract, “Until their contracts expire, it is the honest and moral thing to do.” The honest and moral thing for Crossland would have been not to sell past her contract expiration. Imagine if every county vendor started making contractual agreements beyond the expiration of their contracts—would the BCC be obligated to renew the contract? No, of course not.
Transit Advertising’s ads on older buses that aren’te driven as much because the ECAT is using 10 green buses purchased with grants from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Stimulus Program. Crossland told the commissioners that she promised her advertisers more street time.
Again, not the county’s problem. She over-promised without making sure that she could deliver.