Imagine You’re Rupert Murdoch …
71 Comments so far
Leave a comment
March 10, 2011, 6:43 am
Filed under: Comment
Filed under: Comment
… hmmmn, that’s not really a good starting point is it?
OK, imagine you’re a magazine publisher and have decided – for reasons only you can fathom – to start a monthly ad mag … apart from having lot’s of photos of yourself in it [thanks for that Rafik] what would you actually like to see/read in it and, possibly even more importantly, what things – based on the current mob of titles available – would you absolutely insist of having chucked out from the very start.
71 Comments so far
Leave a comment
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
First.
God, how depressing that [1] I’m the first person to comment on my own post on my own blog and [2] I am making a big deal out of it.
Yes, that is how bad my day/night has been … hence [1] a crappy post about [2] something I already asked on twitter last week.
I think I’ll go now. Thank you.
Comment by Rob March 10, 2011 @ 6:48 amwhat the fuck has got you up so fucking early? your conscience?
Comment by andy@cynic March 10, 2011 @ 7:25 amNo. A cat.
Comment by Rob March 10, 2011 @ 7:28 amyou fucking wimp.
Comment by andy@cynic March 10, 2011 @ 7:33 amThat photo of murdoch is uncannily like you. Hang on, you’ve never been seen in the same room at the same time. Coincidence?
Comment by Billy Whizz March 10, 2011 @ 6:54 amHot birds with big tits.
Comment by Billy Whizz March 10, 2011 @ 6:54 amThe comment above is what I’d like to see in the magazine, it’s not just a random dream.
Comment by Billy Whizz March 10, 2011 @ 6:55 amNever thought I’d say this, but what Billy said.
Comment by DH March 10, 2011 @ 6:59 amJump on the Billy bandwagon.
Comment by Billy Whizz March 10, 2011 @ 7:05 amdaily show version for adland..
Or a republican rightwing admag… with evangelicals and gun owners talking about ads.. adland is not just madison ave.. it is alaska as well..
Comment by niko March 10, 2011 @ 7:05 amYou could start by not calling it an ad mag….
Aren’t we digging our own grave if what we do is say “Advertising” when what we mean is “Use our lateral creative skills to change stuff”?
Comment by Katie Chatfield March 10, 2011 @ 7:08 amis it just me or does that sound like the ultimate slogan for an escort service…
especially if combined with the “Billy bandwagon”
Comment by niko March 10, 2011 @ 7:13 amExcellent point Katie but for the slightly annoying fact that very few companies seem to use any lateral thinking skills whatsoever.
Comment by George March 10, 2011 @ 7:14 amlateral?
Comment by andy@cynic March 10, 2011 @ 7:21 amcreative?
skills?
What people really think about things, not the self serving, sanitized PR that most are filled with.
Comment by George March 10, 2011 @ 7:12 amAnd it would be nice if you couldn’t tell which agencies were showering the editor/publisher with advertising revenue, event sponsorship or golf days.
Comment by George March 10, 2011 @ 7:16 amCall the papers, George has gone dirty harry on our ass.
Comment by Billy Whizz March 10, 2011 @ 7:17 amhas this fucked up post touched a nerve auntie?
Comment by andy@cynic March 10, 2011 @ 7:19 amNot sure if that counts bribery on the agencies’ part or whoring on the trades’.
Comment by Rafik March 10, 2011 @ 11:13 amOne man’s gratitude is another man’s bribery.
Comment by Rob March 10, 2011 @ 2:52 pmAll ‘reporting’ carried out by Andy (the @cynic version) and Billy Whizz.
And, failing that, a regular comparison of the latest agency hyperbole with reality wouldn’t go astray.
Comment by Felix March 10, 2011 @ 7:19 amthey couldnt pay me enough to fucking care let alone write. on the other hand billy would fuck a pygmy for $5 and a starfucks.
Comment by andy@cynic March 10, 2011 @ 7:22 amAnd a starbucks? That’s some mean negotiating you’re doing for me there Andy.
Comment by Billy Whizz March 10, 2011 @ 7:23 amalways fucking looking out for you billy boy.
Comment by andy@cynic March 10, 2011 @ 7:25 amAndy, no-one would be paying you to care, just to rant. And in case you hadn’t noticed, you’re already doing that for free.
Not sure about Billy’s idea of putting the pygmy in as a page 3 girl, but it might be worth a shot.
Comment by Felix March 10, 2011 @ 7:43 amyou think i come on this shit heap for free? check you bank balance buddy, campbells been stealing moolah to pay to associate with me for years.
Comment by andy@cynic March 10, 2011 @ 8:03 amBloody hell, I pop away for 2 mins and look what happens. And George has gone bad. Brilliant. [Good points too, especially the annual “spot the agency who has been the nicest ‘friend’ to the magazine editor/publisher” competition]
Comment by Rob March 10, 2011 @ 7:28 amThis may be just a summary of all the excellent suggestions above, but a magazine that would encompass, encompassing is good, the contributions of all who are involved in our industry, clients included,would have enormous appeal to me, a possible mag title that would sum up the kind of upscale, should be upscale, ad magazine with across the board appeal might be Get Fucked.
Comment by Ciaran McCabe March 10, 2011 @ 8:15 amsounds like a good idea your post
Comment by named March 10, 2011 @ 8:25 amI would like to think a little bit more about it
you dont have to think to be on this blog. if you think you would know you should never fucking come here.
Comment by andy@cynic March 10, 2011 @ 8:48 amThe focus should be on criticising bad advertising and there should be no mention of awards. By being the magazine you don’t want to be seen in, it would maybe effect change in the business in a way that traditional industry publications singularly fail to do.
And George should write a column.
Comment by john March 10, 2011 @ 8:33 amadbusters tried to do that. then they became satirist twats.
and you want george to write a column? you fucking mad fuck.
Comment by andy@cynic March 10, 2011 @ 8:49 amThere is no bad advertising, only bad clients and bad agencies, not to mention bad consumers. It’s as simple as that. Maybe.
Comment by Ciaran McCabe March 10, 2011 @ 9:06 amand bad award judges. always bad fucking award judges. unless you win.
Comment by andy@cynic March 10, 2011 @ 9:08 amFor some people I could mention, Ciaran and your comments are facts, not pisstaking.
Comment by Rob March 10, 2011 @ 9:23 amwho the fuck is taking the piss?
Comment by andy@cynic March 10, 2011 @ 9:26 amYep, it’s all bubbling along quite nicely …
Comment by Rob March 10, 2011 @ 9:22 amTake out those fucking shit industry party photo pages. Toss pots!
Add an “Ask Andy” advice section.
Comment by Age March 10, 2011 @ 9:32 amBefore you dismiss me, let me explain, I’m not implying that just because there are bad agencies, bad clients, an even bad consumers out there that I’m perfect. When it comes to perfect I stand next Andy. By the way, we still have a chance.
Comment by Ciaran McCabe March 10, 2011 @ 10:17 amBut isn’t Andy perfection personified?
Comment by Rob March 10, 2011 @ 2:53 pmHey, to make up for any offense I may have caused,
just to demonstrate that there are people around who know how to touch other people, please read this
http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/2011/01/katie-prefect.html
It is the most wonderful piece of writing I’ve read in a long while.
Comment by Ciaran McCabe March 10, 2011 @ 10:41 amThat is an absolutely wonderful story and prooves that retail staff can play a massive part in both the creation of purchase excitement and brand magic. What a shame so many companies regard them as simply ‘cash register monkeys’.
Comment by Rob March 10, 2011 @ 3:03 pmThats why it was on my blog weeks ago!
Comment by john March 10, 2011 @ 4:04 pmAhead of the curve as usual. You should start a trends network.
Comment by Rob March 10, 2011 @ 4:22 pmAnd you should start reading my blog.
Comment by john March 10, 2011 @ 5:50 pmThis makes me wonder how many agencies would renew their Adweek/AdAge/Campaign subscriptions if they weren’t on some auto-renew plan getting billed to a credit card everybody forgot about?
I still don’t have a smart answer to your question btw, that’s why I’m sticking with what I know works.
Comment by Rafik March 10, 2011 @ 11:08 amI once worked with a guy called Sargant and so we registered the company name ‘Sargey & Sargey’ with the view we’d send random invoices to clients of Saatchi’s and see if they’d pay.
It was only when our lawyer explained the breadth of definitions of ‘fraud’ – from a legal perspective anyway – that we stopped. So what I guess I am trying to say is that I think you might be more accurate than you thought.
Comment by Rob March 10, 2011 @ 2:55 pm36 pages of real people.
Comment by Marcus March 10, 2011 @ 4:20 pmand now Age is going to W+K.
Comment by Marcus March 10, 2011 @ 5:35 pmYes, but he doesn’t know his job is to fetch the papers each morning.
Comment by Rob March 10, 2011 @ 6:31 pmam I the only person in the world that doesn’t want to work for w+k?
Comment by Marcus March 10, 2011 @ 6:36 pmwouldn’t have me anyway.
Comment by Marcus March 10, 2011 @ 6:38 pmI fetch goooooood!
Comment by Age March 10, 2011 @ 6:56 pmWe’ll name you ‘sheepdog’. Quite apt for an Aussie really.
Comment by Rob March 10, 2011 @ 7:05 pmI think Marketing Week’s calls to customer service lines of various companies and transcribing the discussions with added comments was an interesting starting point, shame they do it in a boring, clinical way. If it were more facejacker than what it is now, I’d read it. Not entirely advertising related but makes a point about how stuff at the other end isn’t always sunshine and rainbows despite advertising’s best efforts.
(I haven’t had enough time to read the other comments but I’ll be the loser to say something vaguely useful or potentially helpful to this idea)
Comment by andrea March 10, 2011 @ 5:50 pmIt has been noted Andrea. Thank you for letting your cred slip by staying on topic and suggesting something useful.
Comment by Rob March 10, 2011 @ 6:33 pmfortunately/unfortunately i didn’t just read the headline and kill myself.
Comment by lauren March 10, 2011 @ 6:24 pmRehashing Bill Hicks, he’d be so proud.
Comment by Rob March 10, 2011 @ 6:32 pmwho?
Comment by lauren March 10, 2011 @ 6:51 pmYou are joking aren’t you? Please tell me you’re joking.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDW_Hj2K0wo]
Comment by Rob March 10, 2011 @ 7:15 pmi know who he is. i was just yanking your chain 😀
Comment by lauren March 10, 2011 @ 8:13 pm* Actual, proper inspirational behind the scenes/what inspires folks in the business, not just some limp wristed ‘trend’ which did the rounds on Twitter 3 weeks ago.
* The magazine should feature some proper ethnographic research/thinking in conjunction with an agency every month (not some co-sponsored rubbish, but a proper look at how people’s behaviours are changing/staying the same).
* A section on where people in the industry have come from (IKEA furniture design, say) and what they feel it has taught them/helped them bring to the business. Or, where people leaving the business go on to.
* A spotlight on a client, but with a twist – agency people put questions to them, and an anonymous question or three are allowed to be put forward, not the PR exercises which currently adorn the pages.
Just some starters for ten, anyway.
Comment by Will March 10, 2011 @ 7:03 pmYou join a very small group of people who not only keep blog comments on track, but have done as I asked. Fool!!! But thank you.
Comment by Rob March 10, 2011 @ 7:09 pmTrade magazines are a waste of paper.
Comment by john March 10, 2011 @ 7:55 pmhttp://lifeatthebottom.com/ is a great start for some of those. featuring our man stan too 😀
Comment by lauren March 10, 2011 @ 8:15 pmRob – I could have said ‘make a magazine which doubles as top quality bog roll’, which would make 95% of the trade press more interesting/useful…but I do think trade magazines can be good. Sometimes. Maybe. 😉
Comment by Will March 10, 2011 @ 7:14 pmLet’s be honest, we can’t really blame the advertising magazines for their content given they simply report the trash many of us make.
Mind you, George seems to have a different opinion on that, ha!
Comment by Rob March 10, 2011 @ 7:19 pmto some extent I agree with John that they are a waste of paper but they are a waste of paper in their current form. They could be so much better by either publishing them less often but making content interesting or publishing them as often and making the small bits matter (but they’d end up looking like a pamphlet)
However I look around at people, real people in the industry who don’t read anything online (for lack of time or interest) and usually just skim through newspapers that hang around in agencies and it’s a real shame that the ones who get to make decisions on what shapes behaviour have very little interest in what happens outside our world. Campaign is currently sold as 2-3 subs per office: one to sit in a recption for visitors to read and anyone else to peruse and otehers that land on the desks of senior management. Something that just lands on your desk and forces you to read it may not be SUCH a bad idea for some.
Comment by andrea March 11, 2011 @ 12:06 amAs someone who’s made a living out of this ‘waste of paper’, I’d like to say that not all trades are equal(ly bad). I really do think there are some mags and websites out there that try to reflect the diversity of the industry and all the brilliance it can be capable of. They just don’t tend to be the ones that land on your desk every week.
And I also know that some of the agencies people on this blog worship are also the ones that are not afraid to, ahem, shower editors and journos with gifts. If the trades are swayed by those things (as some, but not all, have been), then that’s a reflection on the industry as much as it is on the mags.
Love Will’s suggestions by the way. I might nick a few of them. One of the issues with the trades, and it’s a reflection of the industry they cover, is that they have become too inward-looking – the job move or the account move are the bread-and-butter. They’d be far more interesting if they had a broader knowledge and understanding of the world outside marketing – as would people in agencies.
Unfortunately, I also know that the quality you’re seeking will only become harder to find. The bottom has dropped out of the trade publishing industry and is not coming back in a hurry. The money is in events and awards – the mags are just brands to hang them on. And if the mags aren’t making money, they won’t invest in journalists or new types of content.
Great discussion, by the way.
Comment by AJournoSpeaks March 11, 2011 @ 6:18 pmI am bloody chuffed you have written on here – and I am also chuffed you highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of the current ad media.
My post was not meant as a slag off, it was a genuine desire to hear what people would say because I must admit, from a personal point-of-view, I feel a lot of the current offerings are like MTV … moving further and further away from the original premise of the product at a time where potentially, the need for a strong industry paper is at an all time high.
Your point about the money being in events etc is obviously bang on. The thing is, some publishers seem to forget a strong paper is vital for creating credibility and in such a competitive award category, companies are going to spend their entry fees on the awards/conferences that they think count the most and while a good line up of speakers is vital, it has to be more than just that – or the whole value of a strong brand is called into question, which would be a bit mad for a magazine celebrating brands etc.
As for the low level of investment in journalism. That’s another tragedy. Everyone loses except some shareholders and producers of iPad devices because publishers will push content on to that format to minimise costs and put greater workloads on the minimal amount of journalists they are willing to hire.
Seriously, I’m really glad you commented and I hope it can be turned around because as I said, a strong industry media has the potential to raise the game and value of the whole industry.
Comment by Rob March 11, 2011 @ 6:45 pmAll photos must be natural instead of the horrible suit or business jumper poses we always get.
No announcing who has won what unless they decide to actually announce everything instead of picking the wins by agencies they like.
Proper critique of ads by agency folk and the public. (Some do this, but not very much of it)
A lot more about what is being said online.
Comment by Rob Mortimer March 13, 2011 @ 2:38 pm