One of the great things about being in public relations and advertising is that the industry is always evolving, growing and changing, right? After reading an article in this Sunday’s New York Times entitled, “Magazines Turn to Cover Ads, and Even Pouches, for Revenue,” I can’t help but think that it is not only how we do things that is changing but also why we do things.

There is no question that print media is suffering. With decreased marketing budgets, social media, RSS feeds and online versions available, print publications are looking for new revenue streams. Where does one find new places for advertising if the medium itself is shrinking?

The solution that has many cringing and applauding alike is to sell the front cover/page of the publication. The NY Times, USA Today and other publications have been allowing ads to be placed on their front pages for some time now and many have taken it in stride. Many traditionalists have not. Traditionally, the cover has been given to a person or topic of editorial relevance, not taken by the highest bidder. Where does the advertising and editorial split? Should the advertising drive the content?

This is a debate that will continue to heat up between journalists and marketers as the line between editorial and advertorial content blur.

Below are some of my favorite quotes from Stuart Elliott’s piece which talks about Glidden buying a pouch for their pullout chart on the front cover of the September issue of a Hearst magazine, House Beautiful.

“There’s no problem with advertising appearing next to editorial,” said Sid Holt, chief executive at the American Society of Magazine Editors in New York. “Our concern is the use of a cover for advertising purposes alone.”

“We were very careful,” Ms. Kelly Smith said, that it be “an editorial cover” because “everything at House Beautiful begins with an editorial lens.”

Mr. Drucker described himself as “particularly enthusiastic” about the idea, a first for House Beautiful, because “we editors have to make magazines exciting again, and this is a great demonstration of how to do that.”

That the pull-out chart would observe “the separation of church and state” between editorial content and advertising was “fundamentally important” to Glidden, Mr. Horton said, because “if editorial isn’t separate from advertising it loses its impact.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/business/media/10adcol.html?_r=1&ref=media

Tags: advertising, changes in advertising, Las Vegas PR Firm, las vegas public relations firm, marketing, MassMedia, public relations, social media

This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 11th, 2009 at 5:05 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.