I've long been a fan of Mad Men, for many reasons and on many levels. I'm not going to go into all that here, but I will note a recent New York magazine review that I think captures beautifully what this show is all about.
The review was written right before Season 5 began, and it bats back some critics' complaints that the show doesn't serve history as it should by perfectly encapsulating the era. The review argues -- so correctly -- that this was never the intention of Mad Men.
This show is what all great writing should be: a window into the human condition. Mad Men is a perfect (silent) canvas on which life, hope, and good and evil play.
(And a side note on any suggestions that Mad Men has a soap opera flair: Well, how many times in your life have you had a tangled day and thought to yourself, "My life is like a soap opera"? I find the show completely realistic, the characters very well developed, and each episode self-resolving. Not much of a soap opera from where I'm sitting.)
The review uses the word "intimate," a great observation, and also notes Mad Men's resistance to a "master narrative" that has to be resolved or kept wound around its characters.
A great show (although, as always, beware before jumping in), and a great review.
Showing posts with label advertising. Show all posts
Showing posts with label advertising. Show all posts
4.27.2012
8.21.2009
A Newsweek critique, updated
I've written about Newsweek several times, and the most recent edition has prompted me to comment again on the transformation on what used to be a nice news magazine for everyday people interested in, well, news.
(The increase in subscription price and the catering to high-end readers has pushed me to drop my subscription, but my current one runs through October.)
This week's Newsweek not only had diverse, interesting content but also TONS of advertising. Several promotional sections packed with ads peppered the pages, and in the columns section, each columnist had a glossy ad page opposite his mug and type, whereas in previous weeks, Newsweek has had to put two text-filled column pages side-by-side.
I was surprised by large amount of advertising (pushing the issue size to 78 pages) until I saw that it was a double issue. Unfortunately, this may be the only way Newsweek can really rake in the ad dollars, and I'm sad to see that it took an alien cover and a double issue to get substantial ad input. It may be a better marketing strategy to go after high-rollers, but it's killing the old Newsweek that I loved.
Also, what's up with the full-page photos of random stuff, with a quote superimposed, that have no refers to the stories they're actually referring to? Newsweek has three or four of these a week, and I find them frustrating, especially since the rest of their content lacks good art.
(The increase in subscription price and the catering to high-end readers has pushed me to drop my subscription, but my current one runs through October.)
This week's Newsweek not only had diverse, interesting content but also TONS of advertising. Several promotional sections packed with ads peppered the pages, and in the columns section, each columnist had a glossy ad page opposite his mug and type, whereas in previous weeks, Newsweek has had to put two text-filled column pages side-by-side.
I was surprised by large amount of advertising (pushing the issue size to 78 pages) until I saw that it was a double issue. Unfortunately, this may be the only way Newsweek can really rake in the ad dollars, and I'm sad to see that it took an alien cover and a double issue to get substantial ad input. It may be a better marketing strategy to go after high-rollers, but it's killing the old Newsweek that I loved.
Also, what's up with the full-page photos of random stuff, with a quote superimposed, that have no refers to the stories they're actually referring to? Newsweek has three or four of these a week, and I find them frustrating, especially since the rest of their content lacks good art.
7.25.2009
NYT subscribers, not advertisers, are funding the show
As the New York Times publishes its quarterly profits report, it looks like the Gray Lady is making more from circulation (suscribers, newsstand readers) than advertising.
This means two obvious things: (1) Advertising is nose-diving, and fast. (2) Charging as much for the Sunday Times as it costs to drive across the state of Massachusetts was apparently worth it.
While newspapers as a whole are having trouble figuring out how to remain profitable, the Times has an interesting angle to work: it has a loyal, high-end, well-educated readership. Traditionally, this meant it could count on advertising dollars. But now it also means that the paper may be transitioning into that era that has been theorized in journalism classrooms but hasn't seen daylight thus far: readers being willing to pay more for a specialty publication.
It's no longer mass media time, with the Times reaching out to the world and expecting a wide swath of readers to peruse its pages and pull in its advertisers. The Times' readership has become a distinct group, and many have been clear that they're willing to pay the outrageous subscription prices to keep getting the top-notch newspaper.
(If you think jacking up prices is a mistake, I would say you're right for most papers. But the Times is a unique product. Think about how much more people pay for a specialty periodical than their typical off-the-rack Time or People magazine...around 150-175%. So, the Times can get away with it because it's going for that up-scale slice.)
(But also remember that if this transition does happen, the Times still may lose readers in the process as it separates the wheat from the chaff.)
Could it be that this is what the Times missed all along? That the way to fund its paper was to, in fact, charge the people who really wanted it?
Whether the Times comes out as a smudgy broadsheet, an Internet edition, an online TimesReader edition, or in comprehensive reports published by the best reporters in the world, it will have readers. To stay afloat and fund this content and reporting, now all the Times has to do, apparently, is charge them more.
This means two obvious things: (1) Advertising is nose-diving, and fast. (2) Charging as much for the Sunday Times as it costs to drive across the state of Massachusetts was apparently worth it.
While newspapers as a whole are having trouble figuring out how to remain profitable, the Times has an interesting angle to work: it has a loyal, high-end, well-educated readership. Traditionally, this meant it could count on advertising dollars. But now it also means that the paper may be transitioning into that era that has been theorized in journalism classrooms but hasn't seen daylight thus far: readers being willing to pay more for a specialty publication.
It's no longer mass media time, with the Times reaching out to the world and expecting a wide swath of readers to peruse its pages and pull in its advertisers. The Times' readership has become a distinct group, and many have been clear that they're willing to pay the outrageous subscription prices to keep getting the top-notch newspaper.
(If you think jacking up prices is a mistake, I would say you're right for most papers. But the Times is a unique product. Think about how much more people pay for a specialty periodical than their typical off-the-rack Time or People magazine...around 150-175%. So, the Times can get away with it because it's going for that up-scale slice.)
(But also remember that if this transition does happen, the Times still may lose readers in the process as it separates the wheat from the chaff.)
Could it be that this is what the Times missed all along? That the way to fund its paper was to, in fact, charge the people who really wanted it?
Whether the Times comes out as a smudgy broadsheet, an Internet edition, an online TimesReader edition, or in comprehensive reports published by the best reporters in the world, it will have readers. To stay afloat and fund this content and reporting, now all the Times has to do, apparently, is charge them more.
7.01.2009
Newsweek blurs the ad lines
Newsweek's redesign has incurred plenty of comments about where news is heading and what the magazine now provides, but this week's issue of Newsweek stepped beyond the normal, design-and-content blabber and took a bold step where a newsmagazine probably shouldn't be going.
Part of Newsweek's redesign is the swaths of white space surrounding the columns of text that somewhat fill its pages, and this week Newsweek got creative and sold adspace in those wide white spaces. Here's the catch: the ad and redesign go together so seamlessly, there's no real break where the advertiser is advertising and Newsweek is news-ing, which makes it look like they go together.
Amazon's ad pokes up in the bottom lefthand corner, and a portion of text points to the Newsweek story with an arrow, saying "In the time it takes you read this excerpt, you can wirelessly download an entire book." (And to complicate things, Newsweek is indeed running a book excerpt, which is another form of meshing the divide between coverage and promotion.) The Newsweek story is boxed off by a very thin blue line, but across the spread, Newsweek's fine-print masthead gives the appearance of being the ad's fine print, without any separation from the excerpt's photos, which hang in the margins.
Basically, Newsweek is going from running ads that look like content (which they do earlier in the issue, advertising for books in their books section) to running ads that wrap into the content. A bold, daring way to make money? No, I don't think so. Rather, it's just another way the new design is cheapening a strong product.
Part of Newsweek's redesign is the swaths of white space surrounding the columns of text that somewhat fill its pages, and this week Newsweek got creative and sold adspace in those wide white spaces. Here's the catch: the ad and redesign go together so seamlessly, there's no real break where the advertiser is advertising and Newsweek is news-ing, which makes it look like they go together.
Amazon's ad pokes up in the bottom lefthand corner, and a portion of text points to the Newsweek story with an arrow, saying "In the time it takes you read this excerpt, you can wirelessly download an entire book." (And to complicate things, Newsweek is indeed running a book excerpt, which is another form of meshing the divide between coverage and promotion.) The Newsweek story is boxed off by a very thin blue line, but across the spread, Newsweek's fine-print masthead gives the appearance of being the ad's fine print, without any separation from the excerpt's photos, which hang in the margins.
Basically, Newsweek is going from running ads that look like content (which they do earlier in the issue, advertising for books in their books section) to running ads that wrap into the content. A bold, daring way to make money? No, I don't think so. Rather, it's just another way the new design is cheapening a strong product.
6.20.2009
Stuff you can still only get from newspapers
Believe it or not, there is still stuff (and I choose to use this ugly word on purpose) that you can only get from newspapers.
As I've written about before, the move of news onto the Internet has killed a lot of the design elements that make print products so great.
In a Slate article about reading newspapers on a Kindle, I found many of the same arguments. The Kindle is a great idea, except that instead of giving straight-up Web news, or the print version on the screen, it offers a third form that takes the worst from both.
One of the main reasons Web news is great is because it's instantaneous, but the Kindle misses that by only updating once a day. So, it ruins the whole point of getting the newspaper on a screen, unless you're just trying to keep your hands clean of newsprint. You're still getting old news.
And even if you love the print version but just want to see it an electronic format, you can't get that from the Kindle, either. Subscriptions on the Kindle deliver the news in a unique format, without the aesthetic appeal of good graphics, carefully designed pages or (and most important) the editorial input found with headlines of different sizes and stories placed with specific prominence.
As much as people argue that they want to be able to pick and choose their own news, what they usually mean is that they want sources where they can find the news they want. They don't mean that they want their news streaming across a screen in all one size font with no breaks, headlines or editorial input such as graphics and slightly sensational headlines. (Although no online or electronic reader sources...except for maybe Drudge report...go to the extreme of no design, it's fair to say there's some serious lack of design creativity on the Web and electronic readers.)
Basically, electronic and Web news is now like newspapers were hundreds of years ago, in the days of smooshed text and multiple decks. The hope is that the revolution to the modern version of print, with beautiful graphics, clean spacing and a laid-out page that makes navigating the news easy, will come soon to these new media.
Here's a grand idea: Just put the print versions on the Kindle, and fill in the different news holes with updates throughout the day. The shock! The difficulty! What, keep using a good model? And there could be advertising on these pages as well? No! It cannot be done!
I have no clue why newspapers are not moving toward their own readers, which could do this and, in turn, save their beautiful printed pages by having them transposed onto a screen.
And remember, Amazon takes 70 percent of all subscriptions run on the Kindle. 70 percent. What do the newspapers have to lose?
As I've written about before, the move of news onto the Internet has killed a lot of the design elements that make print products so great.
In a Slate article about reading newspapers on a Kindle, I found many of the same arguments. The Kindle is a great idea, except that instead of giving straight-up Web news, or the print version on the screen, it offers a third form that takes the worst from both.
One of the main reasons Web news is great is because it's instantaneous, but the Kindle misses that by only updating once a day. So, it ruins the whole point of getting the newspaper on a screen, unless you're just trying to keep your hands clean of newsprint. You're still getting old news.
And even if you love the print version but just want to see it an electronic format, you can't get that from the Kindle, either. Subscriptions on the Kindle deliver the news in a unique format, without the aesthetic appeal of good graphics, carefully designed pages or (and most important) the editorial input found with headlines of different sizes and stories placed with specific prominence.
As much as people argue that they want to be able to pick and choose their own news, what they usually mean is that they want sources where they can find the news they want. They don't mean that they want their news streaming across a screen in all one size font with no breaks, headlines or editorial input such as graphics and slightly sensational headlines. (Although no online or electronic reader sources...except for maybe Drudge report...go to the extreme of no design, it's fair to say there's some serious lack of design creativity on the Web and electronic readers.)
Basically, electronic and Web news is now like newspapers were hundreds of years ago, in the days of smooshed text and multiple decks. The hope is that the revolution to the modern version of print, with beautiful graphics, clean spacing and a laid-out page that makes navigating the news easy, will come soon to these new media.
Here's a grand idea: Just put the print versions on the Kindle, and fill in the different news holes with updates throughout the day. The shock! The difficulty! What, keep using a good model? And there could be advertising on these pages as well? No! It cannot be done!
I have no clue why newspapers are not moving toward their own readers, which could do this and, in turn, save their beautiful printed pages by having them transposed onto a screen.
And remember, Amazon takes 70 percent of all subscriptions run on the Kindle. 70 percent. What do the newspapers have to lose?
Labels:
advertising,
amazon,
design,
graphics,
kindle,
newspapers,
slate
6.04.2009
The value in price
With all the problems print is having nowadays, a common recommendation has been to give things away for free. Then, the circulation rises, and then advertisers will pay more to get face time on the pages.
But one key point many people are forgetting, and that some publications have started to warm up to, is that people value good value. Sure, they'd love to get their magazines for free, but they know that if they at least pay 20 bucks, they're going to get a real magazine, not a shopping catalogue that's trying to hook them.
Newsweek recently redid its entire approach to get out of the weekly-update news grind and into the more thoughtful, in-depth realm, which is where magazines have to head to survive. They can't be the leaders in breaking news; they come out once a week. Instead, they have to give the best analysis and in-depth articles that people won't look for on the Web.
As a result, the type of people who are reading this kind of Newsweek are not the faint of heart. They have to be pretty educated, and they're probably making a little money or are involved in a field of spreading knowledge. So, Newsweek is charging more for its magazine.
Sound crazy? It's not. If someone wants free information, they'll go to the Web. If they want Newsweek's awesome columnists and on-site reporting from all around the world, they'll pay $50 dollars more.
And here's where it really starts to make sense: When companies looking to place advertising know that your readers are well-educated and willing to pay a little more to get this package of solid information every week (meaning they'll really sit down and read it), those companies will be willing to place ads, and pay more for them.
If they advertise in the Metro, they're hoping that out of every 10 copies, at least one person is reading (while the rest are using the free sheet to pick up dog dung, wrap fish or create an adolescent "snowball" war). With Newsweek, advertisers know that each copy is being read.
The New Yorker has stuck to this idea, charging a little above normal for subscriptions because, hey, it's the New Yorker.
Yet Vanity Fair and Esquire just started poaching issues at the rate of a dozen for eight bucks. If I were an advertiser, I'd do my best Weekend Update impression of "Really?!?!" and run the other way. That's an obvious marketing ploy to boost subscriptions; but when people pay $8 for a year's worth, they're not going to mind if several issues lay next to the bed, completely unread. Wasted advertising.
Free is good in many situations, and it can boost readership. Better yet, it can be a gateway to pull readers in who may have never tried your publication.
But when people assign value to what they're reading, they will be more loyal and appreciate the product more. (They'll also hold it to a higher standard.)
And when you get down to it, $60 a year for Newsweek really isn't that much, unless you're a student, and then life just stinks altogether.
P.S. I'm not sure how I feel about the new design package in Newsweek. I'm having issues, no pun intended.
P.S.S. Slate has a somewhat related article about Wired magazine and free products.
But one key point many people are forgetting, and that some publications have started to warm up to, is that people value good value. Sure, they'd love to get their magazines for free, but they know that if they at least pay 20 bucks, they're going to get a real magazine, not a shopping catalogue that's trying to hook them.
Newsweek recently redid its entire approach to get out of the weekly-update news grind and into the more thoughtful, in-depth realm, which is where magazines have to head to survive. They can't be the leaders in breaking news; they come out once a week. Instead, they have to give the best analysis and in-depth articles that people won't look for on the Web.
As a result, the type of people who are reading this kind of Newsweek are not the faint of heart. They have to be pretty educated, and they're probably making a little money or are involved in a field of spreading knowledge. So, Newsweek is charging more for its magazine.
Sound crazy? It's not. If someone wants free information, they'll go to the Web. If they want Newsweek's awesome columnists and on-site reporting from all around the world, they'll pay $50 dollars more.
And here's where it really starts to make sense: When companies looking to place advertising know that your readers are well-educated and willing to pay a little more to get this package of solid information every week (meaning they'll really sit down and read it), those companies will be willing to place ads, and pay more for them.
If they advertise in the Metro, they're hoping that out of every 10 copies, at least one person is reading (while the rest are using the free sheet to pick up dog dung, wrap fish or create an adolescent "snowball" war). With Newsweek, advertisers know that each copy is being read.
The New Yorker has stuck to this idea, charging a little above normal for subscriptions because, hey, it's the New Yorker.
Yet Vanity Fair and Esquire just started poaching issues at the rate of a dozen for eight bucks. If I were an advertiser, I'd do my best Weekend Update impression of "Really?!?!" and run the other way. That's an obvious marketing ploy to boost subscriptions; but when people pay $8 for a year's worth, they're not going to mind if several issues lay next to the bed, completely unread. Wasted advertising.
Free is good in many situations, and it can boost readership. Better yet, it can be a gateway to pull readers in who may have never tried your publication.
But when people assign value to what they're reading, they will be more loyal and appreciate the product more. (They'll also hold it to a higher standard.)
And when you get down to it, $60 a year for Newsweek really isn't that much, unless you're a student, and then life just stinks altogether.
P.S. I'm not sure how I feel about the new design package in Newsweek. I'm having issues, no pun intended.
P.S.S. Slate has a somewhat related article about Wired magazine and free products.
Labels:
advertising,
esquire,
free content,
new yorker,
newsweek,
slate,
vanity fair,
wired
6.03.2009
Change in play
The day after the Globe was threatened to be shut down at midnight, I opened the thinnest A section I had seen since my subscription started. Aside from the wire pages, the editorial pages and the jumps from the front page, there was no other news.
Today, the A section was 18 pages long, and I was wading through two-page spread ads and another page where only one 16-inch story was on two whole pages.
Advertising is a good sign, of course, and I wonder what has led to this rebound in advertising. (For a real contrast, pull out some microfiche from the 1960s, though. I'm always blown away by the immense amount of ads in the paper then...and the wickedly doglegged stories.)
Today, the A section was 18 pages long, and I was wading through two-page spread ads and another page where only one 16-inch story was on two whole pages.
Advertising is a good sign, of course, and I wonder what has led to this rebound in advertising. (For a real contrast, pull out some microfiche from the 1960s, though. I'm always blown away by the immense amount of ads in the paper then...and the wickedly doglegged stories.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
