"Misjudgment by advertisers": Grisons administrative court rebukes Bergün campaign
The ban on photography in Bergün, created by Jung von Matt/Limmat, caused a stir beyond the country's borders in the summer of 2017. Now, the Graubünden Cantonal Administrative Court has taken up the case.
In May, Bergün caused a stir with a campaign developed by Jung von Matt/Limmat: the municipal assembly had decided to issue a ban on photography, as beautiful vacation photos on social media have been proven to make people unhappy (Werbewoche.ch reported).
The campaign caused quite a stir in the media - even beyond the country's borders. But it also attracted a lot of criticism. Not only from outraged people who did not recognize the campaign as such. For example, former advertiser Frank Baumann described the photo ban as a "clumsy campaign" and an "absolutely stupid advertising stunt" (Werbewoche.ch reported).
The ban was subsequently lifted. Jung von Matt/Limmat emphasized that it was "an action in several acts with a planned dramaturgy".
Law misused as a PR tool
As the Luzerner Zeitung newspaper reported on Tuesday, a citizen lodged a supervisory and constitutional complaint with the cantonal government of Graubünden. In his eyes, the municipality of Bergün was misusing a law as a PR instrument - he was disturbed by the manner in which this was done. He also wanted to know whether the decree was in line with higher-ranking federal and cantonal law.
However, according to the result now available, the Administrative Court did not uphold the appeal. The reason: the contested decree was no longer in force and the "object of the challenge" had disappeared from the scene.
Nevertheless, the judge responsible expressed his opinion on the controversial advertising campaign. The Luzerner Zeitung quotes the ruling received on February 13: "The misjudgement of the advertisers and initiators who called for this strange marketing campaign certainly did not improve or enhance the image of tourism in the long term." And further: "On the contrary, this campaign was able to cause bewilderment - if not outrage and head-shaking among broad sections of the population, nature lovers and nature enthusiasts - which can hardly be described as successful advertising with a copycat effect."
The judge is convinced that the "media-induced shitstorm" was "hardly in the public interest of the municipality and the communities that live from tourism". He also described the "publicity stunt" as a "one-off prank" that did not require "a fundamental constitutional debate on the use of and restrictions on public space". (hae)
