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

Just remember that we're fighting about this in a year or two when A-1 is a full-page ad that says "For today's news, turn to page 2...sponsored by Nike."

 

Fairly certain the pig would prefer wearing lipstick to being served for breakfast.

No one is suggesting 1A ads will solve every problem.
But any money we generate is a step in that direction, and we would be foolish not to explore every single option available.
We all like to think we're serving a higher purpose. but at the end of the day, we're a business. Advertising will determine our fate, not great headlines, great enterprise. A few hundred thousand people buy my paper every day. We cleaned up again in APSE. Clearly, that's not the problem.

We've lost two million-dollar accounts in the past three years. That's the problem. That's why we're not at the Masters this week, weren't at the Final Four last week. You think I like hiding the strip club ads from my kids, who want to read about their favorite teams?

If Nike wants to do that, please have them contact my paper. My kids really like their house. We don't have to like the decision, and I don't, but until I publish my own paper, I'm willing to try just about anything at this point. And I don't feel the least bit guilty or any less of a journalist about it. Again, not the way any of us would choose, but we don't get to choose.

I struggle more with this: several years ago, one of the teams in our market went all the way, and we made a boatload of money from advertising, special sections, single copy sales, photo reprints, etc. An unexpected cash infusion. Each year since, we were reminded how much money we "lost" when the team lost. In the back of my mind, I'm wondering: Damn, should I WANT those guys to win?

 

Our credibility should never be up for sale.

 

Apparently the LAT got 50 emails complaining about the ad.

I'm guessing that ad cost enough to pay for someone's yearly salary.

Assuming those 50 people cancelled their subscription and told 50 more people to cancel theirs, the loss in revenue still wouldn't come close to matching what they made off the ad.

Just saying this is a business. Unless Tribune is now a non-profit.

 

ESPN Mag takes some flak for whoring out its cover as well:

http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=135911

 

Unfortunately, none of the money from those ads -- I would love to know what NBC paid for them -- will go to pay for anyone's salary. I'm sure it will be going toward paying off that $13 billion debt.

I'm with MileHigh on this. I'm all for pushing the envelope a little in the interest of trying to right the ship, financially.

But, there really should be some things that we just won't do. And people should know that about us, and should know what those things are.

It's called having standards, and we should have some, even if this is a business.

 

That advertising people were complaining about this tells me something. There comes a point when by doing something like this lessons the value of the product. Now papers have done much worse in the last five years to diminish the value of their product to advertisers and readers a like, but at some point the money you make today may cost you dollars in the future. I can only imagine what the movie industry could do to the LA Time A1.

 

When your facing elimination, you don't save your ace. You throw him out there and hope to live another day.

Whatever gets you to tomorrow.

 

Good ad people have always been aware of that. I remember my dad in the 1970s or 1980s telling a client that he wasn't going to run the guy's ad upside-down "to get more attention." He told him this wasn't the circus and the other advertisers would think it's tacky. Thing is, ad people then (and at that paper) had long-term relationships with the clients and the clients tended to listen if the ad guy told them their idea sucked. But you have to have built trust in order for them to listen to you and not just pull the ad and walk away in a huff. Not sure it's that way anymore at most places because tenures are shorter.

 

A follow-up on the backlash here:

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

I can't help being profoundly saddened by this.

Considering where the Times is, though, there does appear to be a method to the madness, especially when you consider not only the "Southland" ad, but also the one coming this weekend in Calendar to promote "The Soloist."

These two ads, with every indication that more are now likely to come, would see to indicate the establishment of an attempt/trend toward mining prime television/movie industry money, an underemployed avenue, apparently, as much as possible.

DanOregon makes a very good, scary point here, though. Especially if/when you really think about it.

 

Not too many good ad people. I see ads in my own paper that aren't proofed by the ad reps, or an ad with a whole lot of white space when it could be filled with useful info. Ad staffs are just looking at what editorial can do to help them sell, since they can't do it themselves.