New York Times runs its first Page One display ad
The New York Times ran its first-ever front-page display ad today — a blurb for CBS television, stripped across the bottom of page one:
The Times reports in its own story about the ad:
The Times would not disclose the rates it charges for ads on the front page. Ordinarily, such space would be coveted by advertisers for its prominence, but it remains to be seen how well it will sell in the current climate, in which ad spending is plummeting.
The E&P Pub blog says:
It’s like the Grey Lady got a frill at the bottom of her long dress.
Juan Antonio Giner calls it:
An excellent ad design.
Dan Kennedy of Media Nation writes three reasons why the ad is nothing to get excited about. His reason No. 2:
Back in newspapers’ heyday, the Times was one of the few quality papers to run front-page ads at all. The reason we’re all saying that the Times is now selling display ads on page one is that it’s always run classifieds.
And Peter Kafka of All Things Digital writes:
Then again, this is only historic because the Times management has been so stubborn about keeping its front page pristine. It’s hard to imagine that any reader will care.
Yeah, well — we care!
What’s our beef? This ad looks too damn much like editorial copy!
That headline font — Franklin Gothic, I believe — Isn’t that the same font the Times uses in many of its news graphics? It’s used much larger here, naturally. But unless I’m mistake, it’s the same font.
The chatter copy on the right — isn’t that the same format the Times uses for its news graphics?
This ad mimics editorial content even down to including a source line at the lower left…
…and a credit line at the lower right!
So a page-one display ad, in living color, stripped across the bottom of page one, disguised as an infographic. With no “Advertisement” label in sight, of course.
We don’t mind the presence of the ad so much — if this is what newspapers have to do to stay alive, then let’s do it — but the use of the same typography and styles as the editorial side just can’t happen.
Or can it? What do you think?
—
UPDATE
The New York Post reported Tuesday:
The New York Times is shopping ad space on its once sacred front page for $75,000 on weekdays and $100,000 on Sundays, according to several ad buyers who asked to remain unnamed.
January 5th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Yeah I thought it was a very well designed ad too…MAINLY BECAUSE IT DOESN’T LOOK LIKE AN AD. It totally looked like some kind of promo-teaser package. Half the newspapers in the country would kill for skyboxes that look as good as this! Come on NYT, can’t you find some car salesman or real estate agents to buy space? I know that at the NYT-owned Press Democrat, where last worked, we had a prohibition on $$ figures or big faces.
How about couches? like in Chicago? Maybe Caroline Kennedy could put up an ad??
January 5th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
I’m probably in the minority, but I’d much rather have a classy, well-designed ad like this than the awful, loud every-color, every-font ads that most newspaper fronts seem to get, including ours.
I think as long as it’s clear to the reader that it’s a paid ad when they look at it and read it, it’s not a bad thing if it feels like it goes with the rest of the page and the product.
January 7th, 2009 at 5:11 am
There’s a company that deliberately copies the style of The Nevada Sagebrush to pretend it’s their editorial work. Readers used to call and complain about the story (it was a long form advertorial) until we signaled it was an ad.
That said, I think this one stands out in a way that readers will recognize as unusual and it has a CBS logo on it, which is not affiliated with NYT. Also, the styles are different enough in my opinion. They are similar in an effort to blend more but they are also pretty different. That’s not Franklin Gothic, I don’t think, the lowercase “g” is wrong.
The headline wording though, is problematic though still not in NYT style (words nor font). NYT readers are pretty savvy kids and it’s not an ad that really has any editorial implications either way. It’s advertising for sitcoms, not exactly worthwhile stuff. Which is why the headline is overstated, uninformative and oversized. I wonder if CBS built it or the ad department. Perhaps it was a dummy headline? That would also explain the similar layout structure.
Is it historic? Insofar as NYT having that much color on the cover, yes. Insofaras having an ad on the front? No. Welcome to the news business, glad they could join us. Perhaps it’ll help pay the rent and hopefully keep the NYT open another year.