- Posted by Bruce Kendall (D) on November 04, 2009 at 11:08:37
In Reply to: RE: Oh, gosh: not advertising supplements posted by Pjay on November 03, 2009 at 17:12:14
why does that bug you?
|
Home
/ FAQ
/ News Classifieds / Events |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer |
Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
69.104.164.251
In Reply to: RE: Oh, gosh: not advertising supplements posted by Pjay on November 03, 2009 at 17:12:14
why does that bug you?
As far as I'm concerned, I objected having 8 or 10 p. of advertising in a row, especially since they don't look like advertising at first. To add to the confusion, the Ayre section in the middle actually has a different presentation and doesn't mention it's advertising, so I thought for a minute I was back to a normal article before realizing it was advertising too.
Nothing wrong with advertising, they need it, but the presentation of the whole thing (questions to designers, layout, etc...) looked to close to proper articles for comfort. I felt a bit "cheated" for lack of a better word.
JB
I haven't seen the ads yet, but if I somehow manage to get more out of them than I usually get from an ad, that will be a good thing.
So now you have me wondering what your -- and others -- impression of the last issue of TAS is.
Truth in advertising, conflict of interests have different definitions, legally, and different meanings, culturally, all over the world.
I know just accept it: without the US participation in WWII, we'd all be Nazis! No, more ikley, we'd have been communists until the US saved us from the USSR (again).
Keep smiling
"Live free or die"
I actually don't watch that much TV, plus I'm French and living in the UK. In both of these countries, advertising on TV is not nearly as present and intrusive as it is in the US.
I actually decided to stop reading TAS a couple of months ago. I was just fed up opening the magazine and reading rave reviews every month. I don't know how many "best ever" CD players they're reviewed over the past year but I remember being a bit puzzled... I remember one issue where a rather cheap DAC was qualified one of the best digital replay out there, as was the über-expensive CDP featured in a an another article a few pages later. Didn't make any sense at all.
I also got a general feeling that reviewers were overall less "qualified", or maybe experienced is a better word, than Stereophile's. I have read reviews in TAS of equipment I've owned which were way too generic, superficial, almost amateurish. I.e, I think I would've done a much better done reviewing the equipment in question. I don't have this feeling when I read Stereophile, whose editorial staff is much more solid for me and has earned my respect (not that I agree with everything they write).
Anyway, just to say I haven't looked at the latest TAS!
Jean-Baptiste
> I objected having 8 or 10 p. of advertising in a row, especially since
> they don't look like advertising at first.
The advertorial pages (but not the actual ads) are clearly marked
"advertisement" at the top. The mention of the cover also clearly
said "advertising supplement."
In addition, this supplement was produced without any involvement from
the magazine's editorial and writing staff.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
I have no doubt the staff wasn't involved, and that's why I objected to having the whole section looking like it's part of the magazine. And I don't think the Ayre section of it is marked as advertising.And yes, I just noticed the "special advertising session" mention on the cover. Hadn't paid attention to it.
Anyway, Stereophile is an excellent magazine, I wouldn't mind paying double the ridiculously low amount required for subscription and free you from the tyranny of advertising.
Jean-Baptiste
Edits: 11/04/09
> I have no doubt the staff wasn't involved, and that's why I objected to having the
> whole section looking like it's part of the magazine.
The designer (not Stereophile's) used a different font to Stereophile's (sans-serif
rather than serif) with different leading and a different visual "feel." I thought he did a
good job of differentiating the section visually from the magazine's regular content.
And as I said, the word "advertisement" was displayed at the top of every page
other than regular advertising.> And I don't think the Ayre section of it is marked as advertising.
No, but it is clearly an ad, I thought. (It was prepared by Ayre.)
> Anyway, Stereophile is an excellent magazine.
Thank you.> I wouldn't mind paying double the ridiculously low amount required for subscription
> and free you from the tyranny of advertising.
Ah, it would take more than doubling. I ran the numbers a while ago. Even if the
inevitable effect of price elasticity is ignored, you'd have to pay many times the
current subscription price to get a magazine free from advertising.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 11/04/09
John,For double the price of subscription, I wasn't expecting a magazine free of advertising! Plus advertising in itself isn't unpleasant. But it would put less pressure on you guys maybe.
Having such a low subscription rate kinda cheapens the magazine in terms of marketing I think. It feels like the publisher is really desperate (maybe he is).
I think Stereophile is worth much more than that. I live in the UK and buy it in newsagents or when I travel to the States (like now, hello from CA). So I end up paying many times more than the price of subscription.
I'm not a raving, adoring fan, I read several mags and not every month but lately, find myself drawn more and more towards Stereophile.
I can't really understand people who complain about it. Is it perfect? No. Does it feel like everybody's trying hard to do a great job? Yes.
If Stereophile isn't doing as well as it should it's certainly not a question of editorial quality and content. I would personally rethink the business end of it but hey, what do I know. They seem to do a better job of it at Absolute Sound, but I feel the content much less to my liking. In other words, it's not as good but if looks better.
JB
Edits: 11/04/09 11/04/09 11/04/09
Don't know what the actual dollar amount threshold would be, but I seriously doubt that at $2 an issue the magazine would stay afloat without advertising.
Now if everyone was willing to pay say $20-25 per issue perhaps it could make a go without advertising. But then everyone would complain about the price and not buy the magazine.
I can live with the advertising, even the supplements, and I actually kind of like all the pretty pictures!
interesting, john. what role, if any, did the editorial staff play in the production of this supplement?
> what role, if any, did the editorial staff play in the production of this supplement?
None. I knew it existed of course, because I had to leave a 16-page hole for it in the
planning of the issue's paging, but we didn't see its content until we got the printed
copies of the November issue.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
i guess the content-side can be held 'safe-harmless' in this case. i would hope that readers can grasp and comprehend the 'business' exigencies of publications and maybe even grant the editors and writers a 'mulligan' on this one. lord knows, we spare nothing when it comes to matters that actually fall in your domain and control.
Post a Followup:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2009, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ Go Green ]
[ Take5 ]