Our tightening economy has been having an impact on our print media, with moves such as staff cuts at the two big publishing companies APN and Fairfax Media, out-sourcing of subbing, and editors overseeing two or three magazines at once instead of just one. Lately I have noticed another sign of the tough times - the placement of advertising features and advertisements is changing.
It's a long time since I worked in daily journalism, but back then there were quite strict standards regarding the placement of ads and advertorials (ads that look like editorial copy). They couldn't be near any copy that was too similar - nothing that would cause reader confusion or blurring of the editorial lines. This was always a source of tension between editorial and advertising staff at our publications. Journalists want purity of product, but sales people are charged with making money.
As times get tougher, I can see that a lot of the old standards are being eroded. A Greer Robson ad runs opposite her column in Woman's Day. Well the Woman's Day is a very commercial magazine, you might say, what does it matter? But then you see an ad for Brian's Gaynor's investment seminars under his column in the Business section of the NZ Herald. That wouldn't have happened a few years ago.
Going back to the Woman's Day, the Warehouse runs a multi-page advertising feature for its clothing lines inside the mag, and some of the pages are almost identical to the magazine's own fashion pages. Do readers notice? Does it matter? Maybe not as much as the purists in the industry would say. But it's kind of "thin end of the wedge" stuff. If advertising and advertorial gets too tacky looking and too messy in its placement it will affect the over-all look of magazines and newspapers and it could eventually drive readers away. Like most things, it's a question of balance, and a subject worthy of discussion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment