A resident of Kuban reported the visible roll advertising for the Yobidoyobi chain in Krymsk, noting that on the backside of the same banner a banner for the presidential elections appeared. The video author accused local authorities of discrediting the image of leadership and of moral laxity. City officials told socialbites.ca that the issue stemmed from corporate greed, highlighting that the advertiser in question sells sushi at a higher price.
According to officials, the advertiser is an Abinsk entrepreneur who offers sushi and rolls. He does not live in Krymsk, and representatives at a reception explained that the brand name is licensed, but there is no control over advertising accounts. They cautioned that a single spoken remark can take on a life of its own. The chorus of opinions aside, some observers pointed to the advertising as a strategic move to edge out competitors by presenting lower prices and free delivery, noting that the same company has higher prices in Abinsk. Critics suggested that the act may reflect a choice to contest rivals through public visibility rather than through price competition. One official characterized the action as driven by greed, implying more about the person behind the stunt than about the advertising itself.
The authorities added that the billboards in question were rented, and the dual setup appeared to involve a misalignment between the two campaigns. They described the placement as unfortunate, given the potential for mixed messages in the same physical space. The district administration explained that the billboards are usually leased by the local governorship, and it was possible that a sublease led to this clash of campaigns. In their view, the misalignment created a situation where one banner represented a brand while another carried political messaging, producing an awkward intersection for residents and observers alike.
A video circulating on social media shows a Krymsk billboard with two faces: one side promoting Yobidoyobi and a claim that a portion of Krymsk residents have tried a particular dish, while the other side features a banner for the presidential election. The narrator calls the setup a disgrace and moral failure, arguing that such advertising harms the standing of authorities and warrants accountability. The sentiment echoed by several viewers reflects concern about how commercial promotion and political campaigns share public spaces and influence community perception.
The episode is not the first to draw attention to suggestive or ill-timed advertising in the region. Earlier coverage noted a blogger who highlighted provocative placements in related contexts, underscoring the ongoing tension between commercial promotion and political messaging in shared environments. Community members and commentators are watching closely to see how local authorities manage advertising rights and the boundaries between paid promotions and civic campaigns, especially in areas where public spaces are limited and used for multiple purposes.