Visual Editors
Visual Editors, NFP was incorporated as a 501(c)(3) non-profit in 2004.
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
John Zhu
Maestro
Joined: 12 May 2004
Posts: 275
Location: Durham, NC
Posted:
Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:47 pm
|
|
| |
| scavendish wrote:: | Here's a little test: would you allow Macy's or Verizon or Bed, Bath and Beyond to buy a strip ad at the top of your page?
No, you wouldn't.
Now, would you run a giant promo to a Macy's or Verizon or Bed, Bath and Beyond story about the start of a sale they were having?
No, you wouldn't.
|
See, the thing is, I would, on both accounts. We already have ads at the top of newspapers, and it's inevitable that it would evolve from an ad in the top right corner to a strip ad across the top. To me, editorial integrity comes from your editorial content, not your advertising content (and I qualify as a reader since I'm no longer in the biz). As for a promo to a story about a sale, if the sale is generating the kind of buzz and expecting the kind of money as a summer blockbuster movie, then yes, I would promo the story, because it'd be of interest to readers. Besides, what about those centerpieces about tax-free weekends? Couldn't you argue that those are just giant ads for retailers?
As much as people talk about the need to give the readers more of "what they want", why would this be any different? Not everything that interests the readers is of the highest journalistic value, but they generate interest nonetheless. And frankly, readers don't have the same awareness of newspapers' advertising/editorial divide as journalists do; otherwise they won't be leveling the "you're just trying to sell more papers/make more money" charge. We criticize journalists who scoff at community news and say "this isn't journalism." But is it hypocritical of us to then turn around and scoff at something like a promo for a story on a movie and say "this isn't journalism", even if the subject is generating a lot of interest?
On another point: I do agree that it's bad for the promos to give away the review. The blurbs should leave some mystery and make people want to flip the page, not tell them the story.
_________________
Let this be a lesson to you: Never Try. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
nicole bogdas
VizEds Moderator
Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Posts: 748
Location: Palm Beach Post
Posted:
Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:22 pm
|
|
|
| |
Ok, I'm throwing this out and then I'm done:
On the two other papers (not fire) you cite here, one has a brothers story promo, which you suggest helped sell the fire page, and the other has the lowdown on Congress approving war funding. Who's to say that it was the promos that sold the paper? Just playing devil's advocate, but the congress story was a big deal with the dems doing the opposite of what they said they would and all, and if the brothers story is as big as you claim, that could have just as easily been the driving force behind sales that day. Just a thought. This thread is dead to me. 
_________________
All the region 3 news you will ever need!: www.visualeditors.com/bogdas
Now in e-mail form!: http://groups.google.com/group/sndregion3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
It doesn't make you a liar, it just makes you wrong. --Rachel Cantu, Sweat & Bones |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Billy Simkins
Contributing editor
Joined: 27 Jul 2004
Posts: 141
Location: Bakersfield
Posted:
Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:23 pm
|
|
|
| |
FTR, we didn't give away the Spider-Man movie on the cover. We had a Spider-Man spectacular inside our paper. The movie sucked I think, I'd have to go see. In any case, it's a good point and I'll pass it on to our copy editors.
Nicole, even with our big news story of the year, it still fell short of our Shrek blowout and even the Pirate blowout. I only posted this because Scavendish claimed that the hard news story was probably the reason sales were higher. Everything points to impact selling the paper in this case. There will always be "what-ifs."
And as far as this thread being dead to you:
| nicole bogdas wrote:: | | I think we could all learn a lot from the hard numbers behind your philosophy, including you. |
You don't have to leave a discussion and have nothing to do with it just because I came up with some numbers that supported my theory. I felt like you were on the attack through most of this thread, then when I gave you some information and you decided you wanted no part of this conversation. Nothing personal, just an observation.
_________________
The dude abides
- Dude
Last edited by Billy Simkins on Thu Aug 23, 2007 3:03 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Lee
Tiki Lounger
Joined: 10 Apr 2006
Posts: 16
Location: Rockton, IL
Posted:
Tue Aug 21, 2007 1:23 am
|
|
|
| |
This is my, admittedly, not thoroughly thought out response to this:
Do you really think 600 (or in the pirates vs shrek case, 300) more people bought a paper because of visual impact?
Even being a designer, I can't imagine actually buying a newspaper simply because the teaser was good. At the risk of sounding naive, If you just put a regular old Shrek cutout on the top of your page, and had a headline that made the word 'Shrek' clear, don't you think the rack sales would have been the same? Did impact really play that important of a role?
Maybe its just that your particular readers like Shrek more than Pirates, or even hard news. I find it incredibly hard to get myself to believe that because a paper has a bit more 'pop at the top', a significant number of people will actually care enough to pick up the paper and actually buy the thing.
Imagining it from a readers perspective: Lets just use someone who actually MIGHT read the paper occasionally (because I surely don't think we're talking about winning back those that are forever 'lost'). They look at your paper everyday and maybe glance at the top fold. Would this person see Shrek, a topic they probably expected to see by now anyway, and decide to go through the process of buying a paper just because the teaser was 'impactful'?
If it were me, I could never see that being the case.
Granted, if it were me, I probably WOULD pick it up, just to admire the design.
From a purely theoretical and design perspective, I actually like what you guys do at Bakersfield, but I just cannot get myself to buy into the idea that a big promo changes anything (at least significantly).
I could be wrong, and your numbers could be implying what you're saying they are, but it'd be nice if there were some more solid proof (that, I know, is asking way too much).
Excuse my rambling...I just don't know exactly how to feel about this topic; It's frustrating, confusing, and intriguing all at the same time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ben Ramsden
Contributing editor
Joined: 08 Feb 2005
Posts: 125
Location: The Pioneer Press in St. Paul, Minn.
Posted:
Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:33 am
|
|
|
| |
I've been skimming this discussion for a while now, and it's brought out some excellent points.
I admit, I did one of the big Spider-man promos on the top of the Pioneer Press. And there was a lot of discussion about it in our newsroom, this forum and other places. You should have read some of the emails. Yikes!!!
However, we don't try to do a massive promos in our masthead everyday, and we have back away from it. It's not to say we won't ever do it again. We will. But the content and the relevance to the reader must play a factor. I think visual impact in the flag can and does drive rack sales. But we have to think about the subject matter.
And I also think we (being the Pioneer Press) need to continue to surprise readers. When there's a huge promo in the flag everyday, readers get used to it and expect it. However, when it's used sparingly, and when the content calls for it, that's when we take a chance and see what happens.
We also have think about what else is on the front page. For example, if there's a huge photo of a massive flood with a powerful headline below the mast head, that's what's going to drive rack sales. Not a promo about hot fall fashions in our features section. That's probably a bad example, but I hope you get what I mean.
Well, that's my 2 cents.
_________________
"It's not how far you go. It's how go you far" - Dave Marshak (Ski School) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Weir
Visual Guru
Joined: 23 Feb 2006
Posts: 57
Location: Columbia, MO
Posted:
Tue Aug 21, 2007 12:41 pm
|
|
|
| |
| Chris Lee wrote:: | | Billy Simkins wrote:: | | Chris Lee wrote:: |
Do you really think 600 (or in the pirates vs shrek case, 300) more people bought a paper because of visual impact? |
Well, ya. That's the whole point of this thread. |
Billy, I think you're oversimplifying my question. You're ignoring the fact that just because numbers happen to be different on that Shrek day, doesn't necessarily mean it was because of the promo.
Linking numbers directly to that promo seems to be ignoring logic. Don't you think there should be some sort of solid explanation behind WHY the promos work? Not understanding exactly why these promos work doesn't help much -- especially in the way of being able to actually come up with some sort of true 'solution'.
I'm not saying that you're wrong, either, because you might be right. But my point is, why? |
It sounds like what's needed here is some more solid research on what specifically drives rack sales. My former editor in N.C. loved to trot out some old ASNE data that said that 40% of single-copy sales were driven by promos for UPCOMING stories. I had a little trouble believing that because I never could remember what our Sunday story would be, and I had a hard time imaginging a reader remembering it that far in advance, and then making a plan to buy it on Sunday. But in any case, I never actually saw the study.
I also always learned -- growing up in a publishing family -- that Wednesday and Sunday were big single-copy days, due to grocery ads and department store ads. Could still be true, at least for those papers that still sell those sorts of ads.
As for the big promos driving single-copy sales ... I'm mixed. On the one hand, the newspaper is bold and visually interesting, so it might play better against everything else in the newsstand. OTOH, I'm also sympathetic to the argument that a Shrek promo isn't necessarily going to sell the paper, since every other media outlet in the country is writing about it, too. While B-field certainly did have circulation increases, I'm not sure if they're statistically significant. (My head hurts when I think about that stuff.)
The whole topic might be something for a smart graduate student to take on at some point.
_________________
Rob Weir
eMprint Managing Editor
The Columbia Missourian
WeirR@missouri.edu
Missouri School of Journalism
313 Lee Hills Hall
Columbia, MO 65211
573-882-5057 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Previous topic
Next topic
