You Know Things are Bad When the LAT Sells an A-1 Ad -- and Not a Wrap

Wow. There is a 5-column x 2.5-inch ad across the bottom of the main front page that looks like it belongs among the TV listings, and next to it is a 1-column x 10-inch infomercial type ad -- specifically marked as such, for NBC along the left side.

Truly, nothing is sacred anymore.

I'm glad to see the paper get the ads, but, what a shame.

Here's some info on the situation from LAObserved.com.

http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2009/04/southland.php#more

It could've been worse, though. Much worse. Eddy Hartenstein apparently was talked out of allowing that NBC editisement to run in the upper-right story position.

You know, where lead stories go.

http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2009/04/eddy_talked_down_from_muc.php

Wow.

 

I'm disappointed that there's not more outrage about this...To me, the idea was terrible but given the crisis facing the LAT I might have signed off on the ad if I was the publisher, as well...but the execution is what is really pathetic...the fake editorial column is too wide and runs into the gutter, causing the hed to bump the news head...and as a result, the whole thing looks like a drunken night at the Maneater.

 

That looks poor. We have ads on our front, but at least they're proper ads, not somthing that's trying to pass itself off as a news story.

 

Looks worse than it sounds:

 

I say sell it if you can, where you can, when you can, as often as you can.
Turn the front into a billboard if that saves jobs.
Two years ago, I would have been outraged. Now? Part of our problem is we refuse to adjust, we just hope for better results.
Don't know about you guys, but I have a family to feed, and I rely on my paper to make enough money to keep paying me to do what I do.
If that's selling out, so be it.
This ain't fun and games anymore. This is real life with real consequences.
Whatever advertising needs to do, go for it.
Only fools -- and Pat Burrell -- fail to adjust.

 

I'm past the point of newspapers whoring themselves out - my only complaint is that they're such cheap whores.

 

Oh, please. This isn't "adjusting." It's desperation, and it's not going to make a damn bit of difference in whether newspapers will survive, let alone thrive.

"Adjusting" = finding a new revenue stream that will sustain us for the future. So-called creative ad placement isn't going to save us. It's cheap lipstick on a dying pig.

If newspapers had any self-respect, we'd hold on to at least some shred of credibility instead of letting advertisers and shareholders run roughshod over all that we've built.

 

That's the thing. It really does look much worse than it sounds, especially when you understand journalism, the LAT's place in it, and when you know what the two elements are. In a real sense, it is giving NBC -- by all rights a competitor, journalistically speaking -- a hand in the main front page of the L.A. Times. Really, who thought that would ever happen?

It's jarring and offensive to your sensibilities if you know and care about such things. I can only wonder what NBC paid for those ads.

I understand what you're saying, 1HPGrad, and I agree with you, up to a point. I think probably everyone does.

This is just so disappointing and tough to see, though. That's what we're reacting to, and really, I think we should, more than we have.

But then, I guess that just shows how beaten down we've become.

 

I'll say

 

To quote, ironically enough, the NBC show Law & Order, "Your credibility is not a boomerang. You throw it, it doesn't come back."

 

Perhaps what's most appalling is it looks like the LA Times was chasing after NBC and didn't bend their ethics after being offered a lot of money, but bent their ethics in the hope that they'd be offered a lot of money. NBC was suprised how much the LAT bent over, and this is NBC the company that sells skits on SNL.

 

Doesn't bother me a bit. I don't know why A1 is this sacred spot where we can't sell ads.