[skippy the wonder dog]

This situation is actually a little different from paying homeless people to hold up advertising signs. That is, while it is a simple matter of holding a sign, this particular ad revolves around the fact that the person holding the sign is homeless -- i.e., the homeless person is the ad. The principle in play is the same as that preventing me from using Tiger Woods' image to advertise for the Skippy Widget Co. without paying him through the nose; we all get to control how advertisers use our images. So, while minimum wage would normally be fair for someone holding up a sign (assuming they are paying minimum wage), the ad agency would normally have to pay more for this kind of thing. This is where I see the exploitation -- and the article refers to it, in passing, when it talks about actors and the use of their image.

VLH, I have no problem with payments in kind as long as that is what is negotiated. And if businesses can put homeless people to work, that's good. My point is, payment in kind isn't in the article -- you're dragging in all kinds of other stuff here that is unrelated to this specific case.

What the agency has said suggests they're paying much less, in cash or in kind, than they might normally have to. That's my objection to this.

Well, that and the fact that they're advertising their station using really dumb questions. But that's their problem.