A reader sounds off about advertorial (relax, we're not singling out YOUR [Canadian] magazine!)
Leafing through Bon Appetit's May 2008 issue, one could easily find oneself unknowingly reading advertising messages.
The 222-page magazine has 23 pages of advertorials -- just over 10% of the book ... or almost a quarter of the issue's total advertising pages. That's a lot.
To a reader, it is difficult to quickly sense whether what one is reading is from the magazine's editorial team, or is a recommendation that has been bought and paid for.
Starting near the front of the book, a pattern is established -- a page of editorial opposite a page of recognizable advertising. The reader knows what's what.
Then a page of advertising comes up that is designed to look like editorial, still opposite a page of advertising (for a product featured in the advertorial, of course). This is a DPS, naturally, but it's difficult for the typical reader to sense this at a glance. (Duh, I realize that's the whole idea.)
There are also several multiple-page sections consisting of double-page advertorial/ad combinations, so it "feels" like you're still reading an editorial page opposite an ad, just like the initial pattern that was established. But you're not.
Sometimes the wee 7- or 8-point words "Advertisement" or "Promotion" at the top of the advertorial page are actually almost noticeable (black text against white), but occasionally they're white text against a photo image. And even when done as black-on-white, the font used isn't remarkably different from the running heads on sections of editorial, so you are inclined not to look at them.
I know the advertisers want it this way, and it's hard to turn down ad revenue. And I heard about all the ASME and CSME / MagsCan stuff. But I just want to say that as a reader, it bites.
So to all my Canadian advertising/publishing friends, please try to keep advertorial to a dull roar, before we readers turn away in frustration. Tell the advertisers that we readers value their ads, but we do like to know what we're reading -- an ad, or something from the editorial team. We may be momentarily fooled, but once we realize what's going on, we feel used and deceived. And that's not good for the magazine or for the advertiser.
The 222-page magazine has 23 pages of advertorials -- just over 10% of the book ... or almost a quarter of the issue's total advertising pages. That's a lot.
To a reader, it is difficult to quickly sense whether what one is reading is from the magazine's editorial team, or is a recommendation that has been bought and paid for.
Starting near the front of the book, a pattern is established -- a page of editorial opposite a page of recognizable advertising. The reader knows what's what.
Then a page of advertising comes up that is designed to look like editorial, still opposite a page of advertising (for a product featured in the advertorial, of course). This is a DPS, naturally, but it's difficult for the typical reader to sense this at a glance. (Duh, I realize that's the whole idea.)
There are also several multiple-page sections consisting of double-page advertorial/ad combinations, so it "feels" like you're still reading an editorial page opposite an ad, just like the initial pattern that was established. But you're not.
Sometimes the wee 7- or 8-point words "Advertisement" or "Promotion" at the top of the advertorial page are actually almost noticeable (black text against white), but occasionally they're white text against a photo image. And even when done as black-on-white, the font used isn't remarkably different from the running heads on sections of editorial, so you are inclined not to look at them.
I know the advertisers want it this way, and it's hard to turn down ad revenue. And I heard about all the ASME and CSME / MagsCan stuff. But I just want to say that as a reader, it bites.
So to all my Canadian advertising/publishing friends, please try to keep advertorial to a dull roar, before we readers turn away in frustration. Tell the advertisers that we readers value their ads, but we do like to know what we're reading -- an ad, or something from the editorial team. We may be momentarily fooled, but once we realize what's going on, we feel used and deceived. And that's not good for the magazine or for the advertiser.
Labels: Advertising
posted by Jon Spencer at
8:18 pm
1 Comments:
What I find interesting is when a magazine does a review of a product. How many magazines review products and conclude that they stink, or "don't waste your money". I've never seen it.
We recently ran an ad for a company, and not more than a week later got an email asking us to review their latest product. Now I'm in a percarious position. Good review, maybe I get a repeat ad, bad review, and it could burn that bridge.
So perhaps not along the same lines as advertorials, but you see how slippery the slope can get when it comes to "legit" editorial, and the biases that can arise...
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home