Today’s Australian Financial Review has a red stuck on ad on the front page – covering part of the story about Australians who perished in the Garuda plane crash in Indonesia. As the photo shows it’s a bold ad which pulls focus above anything else on page one. The advertiser would be happy.
I’d be interested to hear from editors and journalists about this ad being placed in front of a page one story. I’m certain they would be unhappy, especially when they lift the ad off and it takes part of the paper with it as I have seen happen several times.
At least this ad is not across the masthead as Fairfax tends to do when running the ads on The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald.
Back in 2004, I was involved in informal discussions with News Ltd and Fairfax and whether newsagents could run ads on plastic bags used in the home delivery of newspapers. Their position at the time was an emphatic no. One argument put was that they could not have such advertising detracting from their product. Every time I see one of these intrusive litter causing post it note type ads I am reminded of their 2004 position.
The add seems slightly ironic. It appears that any part of their front page is literally ‘FOR SALE’!
Jarryd, Maybe it’s just me but these ads seem to really harm the product. Mark
No Mark, its not just you. But it comes down to profit for the publishers. Such a ‘noticable’ advertisment would most likely be quick and easy cash in the publishers pockets.
Weighing up the trade off the cost of damage to the product (physical or visual) compared to the revenue they receive for having the add is obviously something difficult to measure.
For us, the ad of the Fin Review is not really a marjor issue. This particular publication is just about always a pre-determined sale from regular customers who always get that particular paper. They will continute to get it for its content, so the ad in this instance has little impact for us. But with another more prominent publication it may.
If publishers continue to place these types of advertising on their product i would think that the negative effects on sales may be more of a long term issue. If this advertising continually harms the product physically (tearing the paper), then the consumer is not going to keep purchasing a product it knows is ‘faulty’.
The revenue may be a win in the short term for the publishers but long term they need to look at quality control and the reputation of their ‘brand’.
Jarryd that’s what has me stumped. They are damaging what they stand for. It doesn’t make long term sense. Mark