Check out the American Express ad stuck on the masthead of The Age today and see another example of revenue coming before the brand.
I am astounded that this placement passed quality control. While Fairfax bean counters may like the dollars, the editorial team must wonder where this will end.
Again! These advertisments are looking more and more like permanent fixtures.
Not only do such advertisments damage the ‘visual’ brand of the publication, they may actually be damaging the reputation of the content. For a respected publication such as The Age to blatently plaster an advertisment on their front page, does it send a message to consumers? Does it make the publication seem less credible? Does it begin to appear more like a ‘tabloid’?
Publications like SMH, The Age and The Australian rely heavily on the reputation of their content. How does poor quailty control such as this trandslate into the minds of their readers?
I don’t know why you make such a fuss out of this. No it won’t damage the brand, unless maybe with elderly people who are not used to the modern age of internet. People who surf the web are used to this sort of ads “popping up” above the content they actually want. In fact, it’s much faster and easier to remove this AmEx than it is with a lot of ads on the internet which are often animated images that rollover the text you are tyrying to read and go away automaticly AFTER 3 to 5 seconds (which is a long time).
Tom newspapers are newspapers and these stuck on ads impact the brand in my view. They also result in trash. I see no upside, not even for the advertiser. Mark
On the SMH, the post-it was stuck over the top of their full-page souvenir photo of the Harbour Bridge walk. When I pulled it off, of course it ripped through the picture. I can’t see how they could allow that to be stuck on something they’d been publicising for days beforehand. It’s just mad. This was the sort of special which people would have kept for years as a reminder of a the event, but they’re unlikely to do that now. You can’t tell me that’s not devaluing a brand.
I understand what Tom is saying. With more publication (Monkey) etc. being internet publications, it would appear that the advertising gurus are applying what works on the internet (banner adds) onto paper media. I think they have got the demographic completely wrong. It may be more suitable to publications aimed at younger readers who have been brought up with banner ads. Personally, I don’t like it but younger people do have different views morally, ethically and what is acceptable as far as advertising is concerned. I asked my son what he thought. His reply “Who cares”
Leon, while i do admit younger people may have different views to advertising (i know i do!), i can assure you that although we have been brought up with banner ads, pop-us, etc they are no more appealing to us than they are to you. If there is one thing web surfers hate it is an influx of annoying pop-ups. Surfers dont tend to like unrelated, unhelpful and imposing advertising. The same principles often apply on the web as they do on print. If advertising on a website degrates the quailty of that site, the people wont continue to visit it. If advertising on a newspaper degrades the quality of that publication, then people wont continue to buy it.
If advertising such as these stick-on notes is destroying the product then it doesnt matter what demographic they are aimed it. Its not the demographic they have wrong, its their approach, or lack therof, to quality control.
Jarryd, I wasn’t implying younger people liked pop ups or banner ads, simply that if you have known nothing else it’s normal. (Maybe not liked, but normal)
You may have surfed the net (as I did) when there was little or no advertising. Our choice right now & certainly in the future, is not or will not be, what sites we choose to visit but whether we surf or not as advertising is or will be everywhere. (revenue)
Similarly our choice is, do I or do I not buy a newspaper. I don’t really think a banner ad is an issue big enough to effect sales. I’m sure it will be monitored. Good advertising is either loved or loathed, they don’t want neutral (the who cares attitude).
Our newspaper sale have actually slightly increased over the past 3 months. Oh I had better add, I am not implying banner ads have increased our sales.
The SMH has today another one of these “post-it” ads … its a political advertisment “DONT RISK DEBNAM”
Now you cant tell me that an ad such as this isnt damaging to a publication’s reputation. Its bad enough having crap such as that from American Express on there, but to have a political “post-it” on the front page of a major newspaper clearly shows there is something wrong. It doesnt reflect the “objective” stance that a publication such as the SMH should resonate.
For the record, i am not bias against the ad; i wouldn’t “risk Debnam”.
The ad makes the publication look more like a political bilboard, especially when the two front page articles focus on two major political issues; Labor’s proposed broadband investment and Howard’s stance on Iraq; both of which do not shine glamorous light on Howard.
How do they think consumers will perceive all this?
Send me a photo and I’ll post here as a record of shame.
Jarryd, I agree with you. This political add is on the coveted front page of a newspaper that is supposed to provide information and a balanced commentary. Regardless of our political persuasion, this kind of advertising lends weight to the argument that no advertising should be there because where do you draw the line.
And “yes” I do think it is damaging to a publication reputation.