Ads on Covers. They're Doing It. Shouldn't You, Too?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Melanie Feltman on April 21, 2009 at 10:40pm

Covers are still sacred editorial space. If I see an ad on a cover, my immediate thought is "this is not a legitimate publication." I would like to see the media stand up and not tolerate any further blurring of the line between editorial and advertising for the sake of the bottom line. If the publication is hurting so badly that it is considering selling cover advertisements, it's management should re-evaluate the business model, consider adding events or other ancillary products. People who read magazines aren't stupid; they will eventually realize the publication is a sell-out, lose trust in all of its material and eventually stop reading it altogether. Then what do you have?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Garrett Rogers on April 21, 2009 at 11:51pm

I don't agree with putting advertisements on magazine covers for two reasons...first, it's an aesthetic matter because when you think about some of the best magazine covers that have ever caught your eye or held your attention, you have never seen an ad on any of those covers. Putting even a 1/4" ad on a magazine cover takes away from the cover story that the "cover" should be about. This is on top of said ad taking away from the other 16 ads we see in the magazine before we see the table of contents. Secondly, just like many have already mentioned and have felt, ads on the cover of magazines do take away from the magazine's integrity when it comes to walking the fine line between serving the public and serving big business. The unfortunate thing is that we already have this problem when it comes to politicians and news stations, but it took a little while longer for this phenomenon to affect magazines too. Spending money is the only way to print magazines and to pay writers, but it's up to magazine owners to find more creative ways of making money without "selling out".

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ed Troxell on April 22, 2009 at 1:09am

Covers are all about the editorial. There is plenty of room inside the magazine for ad space. I can see how this is appealing to publications, having a cover ad means more money, the way the economy is but I don't think this should be done.


www.mixitupmagazine.com
mixitupmagazine.wordpress.com
twitter.com/mixitupmagazine

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by José Moreno on April 22, 2009 at 5:31am

I see my magazine cover very much like an ad... for the magazine.

Should I put a paid advertisment there? I think the criteria we use to separate editorial from ad space is really an inference, no more than that, of what we think happens inside our readers minds when they read the magazine. What about a full page ad inserted within a feature about the company that paid for that ad? Is it acceptable? Maybe yes, maybe no. What about an advertorial that looks very much like a editorial piece, but is clearly indentified as such? Should it be allowed? And so on, and son on...

I think the criteria we use to separate editorial content from ad content was develloped for a reality that was not as dinamic as it is today. And that is greatly changed nowadays. First of all, because there are new and diversified ways to comunicate with audiences, both for magazines and for advertisers; and secondly because that old frontiers are even more blurred in the context of the new channels of comunication opened by the internet. So, that problem will not grow smaller, it will will grow bigger in the future. Usualy, in times of great change, the ways of the past tend to be part of the problem and not part of the solution. I think we need new answers for the challenges we face - also on this subject of separation between ed and ad - and we have to come up with them as we go. I hope this nice discussion can provide us some.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by L.A. Pomeroy on April 22, 2009 at 8:32am

I don't even have to see the blog to have an opinion on this: To all those mag editors, sitting in your nicer offices with your larger salaries than your lowly adv reps, and crying about 'sacred space' I say, put a sock in it. There's no profession on earth, other than possibly the 'oldest profession' where people are treated worse, thwarted, fibbed to, ignored, etc. than selling advertising, and the treatment we get as we try to make new sales or just hold on to the ads we have, is getting worse. For all we poor grunts at the bottom, I say SELL THE COVER. More power to the rep who sells it first, and can breathe a sigh of relief that their mortgage will get paid for another month. Screw this 'sacred space' issue because it's a lie -- editorial is cut and manipulated to present a certain p.o.v. already, content is planned to complement advertising strategies, and if there's one piece of print real estate all we adv reps have heard asked about, it's "can we buy the cover?" To which I'd love to say, "hell yeah you can."
Mag editors should also realize that they wouldnt have their jobs, or their pages incl. the masthead with their names on it, if it were not for advertising. Content is simply the filler in between ads, and ads pay the bills and make a pub's existence possible. We should start treating our adv'rs better, working with them MORE closely, and embrace them as part of a publication's family -- not as something 'dirty' that we only 'tolerate' while trying to bring the masses their 'pure' reading materials.
I'll add that those Letters from the Editors should spend a little more time driving the message home to readers to support advertisers, to tell them where they saw their ads, and to remember, if they don't use advertisers they may not have a mag to read. Advertisers are the REAL editors of publishing, and rather than continuing the Us vs Them attitude that is not helping keep anyone above water, we should try working together. And if selling the cover helps achieve that, by all means. We're not protecting any readership -- there's no one out there who doesn understand that they are being 'sold to' every minute of every day. So let's just jump on the bandwagon, and let's keep our adv reps employed, our advertisers happy, and ultimately, keep those holier than thou editors employed too.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Chip Means on April 22, 2009 at 9:59am

Great Scott! "Content is just the filler in between the ads." Ever tried selling a publication with no circulation? The content develops the audience, which makes the ad sales possible. The ads pay the bills, but no reader would want a book full of just ads.

Editorial and advertising exist with a strong mutual dependency that should be the basis for creativity and cooperation, not resentment.

That said, I'm most interested in Jose's response. I agree - it should be the readers' perceptions, not ours - that drive decisions that break with convention, such as selling the cover. I don't think I even knew that the cover of a magazine was sacred until I started working in publishing... I wonder how many readers are likewise unaware.

So if you sell the cover, would readers cancel subscriptions and write nasty letters, or would they shrug it off? Or welcome it? As with e-mail newsletters, spam is in the eye of the recipient. If my favorite record label had an ad for my favorite band's new album on the cover of Rolling Stone, it's essentially content that I'm interested in, even though it's an ad. Maybe the challenge is for the ad shops and publishers to work together to define the rules for the nature of ads that are acceptable on the cover.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jonathan Gourlay on April 22, 2009 at 9:13am

Poor L.A. Pomeroy must have worked with some real winners. The vitriol spewed in that response is amazing.

I work at a B2B where the editorial policy has ALWAYS been to create content for our READERS. That's what we do here, and, we sell our cover. An ugly banner across the top that brings in revenue 9-10 months out of every 12. I hate that it's there b/c it detracts from the cover, which is editorial space. But I live with it b/c I understand things change.

My dear Pomeroy. I have a desk in a bullpen area so our ad reps can have offices with doors that close in order to make their sales calls. I would love to have an office, but we don't have the space for that.

I feel sorry for editorial types who work at magazines where "editorial is cut and manipulated to present a certain p.o.v. already, content is planned to complement advertising strategies...." I have been lucky enough--sounds like--to have worked at five magazines in my career where all the editorial was simply and solely aimed at providing the reader with the liveliest quality information possible. That's always been my aim, always will be. I work for the reader, not the advertiser. The ad reps work for the advertiser.

And, Pomeroy, the advertisers buy ad space around content that they have deemed is quality content as indicated by our readership.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mary Ann Oklesson on April 22, 2009 at 10:48am

It's the economy - ads on cover bring in big revenue, which is more important than ever in this challenging economy. Look at all the mags out of biz, even at well established Conde Nast and Hearst. Ad sales in almost every category are down, so print has to be creative and think outside the box.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Vince Wolff on April 22, 2009 at 11:11am

Our industry is in the midst of a terrible recession.......ad pages are down. While I would prefer that covers be kept ad free, the fact is that revenue MUST be generated, and this seems to be a very creative, out-of -the box type of solution.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jon Baldwin on April 22, 2009 at 2:05pm

Change or die.

So many people in this industry are sitting around with glazed eyes saying "...but we've always done it this way...". Well, if you look at the numbers, it's time to find a new way.

Sell what you can, shake-up the circulation model, update your editorial model. This is not 1958. Print media will evolve or perish.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Joy Keller on April 22, 2009 at 2:20pm

I think we need to stop living in the 80s and 90s, wake up and look at alternative ways to keep the publishing industry alive. It's pure hubris to walk around with this gauzy editorial halo and spew a bunch of rhetoric about how we "do it all for the readers." What about the readers?? I think they're a lot more savvy than we give them credit for. Listen, if your readers can't tell the difference between an ad and your "pure content," maybe you need to rethink your content approach. This is a new world we're living in. People are getting their information from mulitple streams, not just one. Let's stop being so egotistical and protective and figure out creative ways to thrive that embrace adverstisment. Let's stop blaming our arrogance on our readership's phantom needs. When was the last time you asked your readers what THEY think about this?? I say open your minds a little, talk to your audience, then decide.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John Sullivan on April 22, 2009 at 2:43pm

This is just flat out wrong. No publication can be taken seriously if they sell the cover. This is sacred space and is meant to engage the reader. Are you telling your readers that the advertiser is more important than them? That is clearly what they are saying and that is shameful.

▶ Reply to This

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last