Magazine Editors Unhappy With 'The New Yorker'


It seems the American Society of Magazine Editors - which, oddly, sounds like a bunch of old men sitting around in a smoke-filled country club lounge - didn't take too kindly to the recent stunt The New Yorker pulled with Target - selling all ad pages, exclusively, to the discount giant. The Society requires magazine's with one sponsor to include an editorial statement stating the advertiser had no influence over editorial content. The New Yorker did not include such a note. Whether or not lines were crossed here, Target, as always, accomplished a masterstroke of publicity with this move and is likely sitting back laughing at all of those who have raised issue with the stunt.

by Steve Hall    Sep-14-05   Click to Comment   
Topic: Magazine, Policy, Sponsorship   

Enjoy what you've read? Subscribe to Adrants Daily and receive the daily contents of this site each day along with free whitepapers.



Bravo! :)

Posted by: Alexei on September 14, 2005 2:44 PM

Well, I don't mean to sound too harsh, cuz you know we love your brilliant newsletters Steve... but I think The New Yorker did a more eloquent job at flambouyantly plugging advertisers than today's Adrant for ExactTarget's "paid advertisement" promo for a Sony PSP! Now the ads are seamlessly weaved into the emails as newsworthy links? Shame on you Mr. Hall, shame on you.

But don't worry, I'll still always be a fan of AdRants. I'll just have to pay closer attention to what's news and what's not!

Posted by: Brandon G. on September 14, 2005 4:19 PM

Ha! Well said, Brandon. You caught us talking out of both sides of our mouth! While those adver-editorial ads have been running for about two years, they, no doubt, come close to, if not, cross the very line I talk about in this post. It may be time to more properly label that ad unit.

Posted by: Steve Hall on September 14, 2005 4:47 PM