4 thoughts on “Counterintuitive?

  1. “In regards to the study’s lukewarm-to-cold reception of online ads, Nathan contends, ‘People are generally annoyed with advertising no matter what. I certainly don’t find it surprising that heavy Internet users find some negativity in advertising in the medium. I think heavy magazine readers would probably feel the pretty much the same if asked direct questions about advertising in that medium.”‘

    It’s the last part i think is sort of stupid of course. Everyone thinks Internet ads are dumb….almost all of them ARE dumb. they haven’t come into their own as an art form, perhaps. Granted, I fall into the “heavy Internet user” category, but I also fall into the “heavy magazine reader” category. I’ve seen approximately zero Internet ads that i would ever click on on purpose. Or that have inspired me to act in some way. Magazine ads are different. How many articles have there been about Lucky, where ads are part of the magazine, and people value them in much the same way as the articles? There are all genres of magazines where you can make comparisons. Sure there are dumb ads. But not like on the Internet.

  2. Normally, i would be flippant here, saying something like, there are ads on the Internet? In Magazines? Where? When did that start? But I won’t be normal. I’m just too stunned to see a serious discussion about ad *content” here. Regardless of the medium, IMHO a good ad is like a good pun – really rare (as I should know) – and the rest are at best quickly passing annoyances.

    But maybe Lucky is onto something – making the ads a seamless part of the editorial, or really, the editorial a seamless part of the advertising. (Larua, are you sure those were articles you read about Lucky or merely ads placed about it?) Not long ago I had the pleasure of editing a small magazine that had a pretty high ad to edit ratio, and I never had a reader thank me for that ratio. Quite the contrary – they complained about our ratio and that of others in the category – nothing to read but ads, they said, and those are all the same. But the soi-disant “publisher” wanted to push the ratio even higher – maybe the Lucky model would’ve worked there, too?

  3. I don’t know how to explain Lucky. I made fun of it for a long time. I’m certainly not their target…I don’t shop enough. But I can tell you unequivocally that reading Lucky has a. made me shop more b. spend more when I shop c. a subscriber and d. aware of fashion, which NO other fashion magazine has ever achieved. [Please no comments on how this hasn’t changed the way I dress. I said “aware.”]
    But the ads are integral and important. You DO find yourself reading them and paying attention to them. Maybe it is the magazine as “trusted source.” Do you pay more attention to the ads in a magazine you trust and read regularly?

  4. >Do you pay more attention to the ads in a magazine you trust and read regularly?

    No. Why would I, should I? Magazines take ads for money. Money spends equally well regardless of whether it’s paid to the Weakly Standard or to Newsweek. My regard or lack thereof for the magazine in which they appear has no bearing on the trustworthiness of the ads.

    I really don’t look at ads. I would pay twice as much for the Tennessean, rag that it is, if I could get it without the ad supplements – now THERE is a marketing concept. And I don’t track which products are being promoted in TV advertising, although I am somewhat more aware of those ads than print.

    This may be a function of my low level of consumerism. The only time I pay attention to ads in any of the magazines I read regularly (Time, Newsweek, Sports Illustrated, National Geo., Family Handyman, This Old House, Consumer Reports, LandLine, Roadstar – I got plebeian tastes) is if I’m thumbing thru back issues to see if there were any ads for something I have taken a notion I need. Since most of my purchases seem to deal with house and such, that cuts it down to Handyman and House. And really, with the Web, it’s faster and easier to (drumroll) find editorial about those items.

Comments are closed.