Here’s a good question for a rainy spring day in New York. Where should the line be drawn between an appropriate and an inappropriate use of an ad on the front page of a newspaper? And, more urgently, has The LA Times crossed that line? From The New York Times:
The entire first page of The Los Angeles Times on Friday was an ad that looked, in part, like the front page of The Los Angeles Times, as the newspaper again tested the accepted limits on where ads can be published and how they can blur the boundary with news.
A garishly multicolored image of Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter, in the film “Alice in Wonderland,” occupies most of the paper’s cover page, superimposed over what looks like the usual, sober front page. Above him is the “Los Angeles Times” banner, and bracketing his face are actual, recent articles.
[snip]
Ads that completely cover a publication’s front page, or are made to look like part of it — or both — are not unusual for trade magazines and some tabloid newspapers, but broadsheets have generally shunned them. But Mr. Conroy noted that however unorthodox the ad may be for print, it mirrors a common practice online of having an ad cover part or all of a Web site’s home page for a few seconds.
“It’s taking a concept that we normally apply to new media and reimagining it to a concept in a newspaper,” he said.
For the–predictably–displeased reaction of members of the paper’s editorial and reporting staff, consult the original article.
There are several interesting things to note here. First, I’m fascinated by the concept of applying practices that have become standard in one medium to a distinct form. Yes, The New York Times doesn’t report on every website–even news sites–that redirects visitors to a full-screen ad before the homepage can be reached. But is there a reason why print newspapers should be different? I have a feeling that literature lovers would not react at all kindly to product placements in their novels. But why do we accept them in our sitcoms? Is The LA Times simply setting a trend here which will become standard practice in a few years?
OK, that was a bunch of questions, but I’m not sure there are solid answers to these questions yet. Let’s recognize here that–for whatever reason–there is something different and surprising about a newspaper using a cover ad. The next logical question ought to be: is it effective? The LA Times apparently decided that the large payment was worth the risk. If your hometown paper ran an ad of this sort, how would you react? (This question assumes, of course, that you still subscribe to a print newspaper.) Do you think the money–which pretty obviously is badly needed by the paper–offsets the risk of weakening the public perception of the product and of alienating customers?
Unfortunately, The LA Times still hasn’t approved the comprehensive look at its budget that I have requested. But I think this is a risk worth taking. I think we’re heading toward a newspaper climate in which this practice becomes commonplace. And while the monetary payout will only decrease as this becomes a more popular option–part of the appeal for the advertiser, undoubtedly, is novelty–I think readers will be understanding of the financial hardships all newspapers are facing.
And how do you feel about these types of possibly invasive advertisements in phones? Interestingly, it may be apps found on platforms like the iPhone that are pushing the boundary here. A common strategy these days is to sell a paid version of an app alongside a free, limited version that is supported by ads. As our phones become mini-computers, are we going to notice such differences in medium? Would you accept ads on your phone, maybe to support free calling or data services?
[Image via The New York Times.]
Related posts:
