LAT: mixing editorial content with giant ads?
08 March 2010 |permalink | email article
Last Friday hundreds of thousands Los Angeles Times readers were startled to see on the entire first page an ad that looked, in part, like the entire front page of the newspaper. In fact, it was the latest attempt by management to blur the line between news and advertising while testing the limits on where ads can be published in an industry that is rapidly losing altitude.
A gaudy multicolored image of Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter, in the film “Alice in Wonderland,” occupies the major portion of the paper’s front page, superimposed over what normally looks like the usual serious front page. Above Depp is the “Los Angeles Times” banner, and flanking him, are sidebar recent articles.
The top editor at The Times, Russ Stanton, and many of his deputies strongly opposed the ad before it was published but reportedly were overruled by the paper’s top business management, none of whom would comment.
But John Conroy, a spokesman for The Times, said “Stretching the boundaries was what we were going for.” However unorthodox the cover ad may be for print, it mimics a common practice online of having an ad cover all or a part of a Web site’s home page for a few seconds, or longer. “It’s a concept that we normally apply to new media and reimagining it to a concept in a newspaper,” Conroy told The New York Times.
I think the flaw in his argument is that it is impossible for print readers without Internet access to remove the annoying distraction of a large ad appearing on a Web site without access to X delete button.
With steep ad declines in recent years, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal all have started publishing ads on the lower parts of their front pages. LAT’s problem now is whether it will effectively be able to make lucrative ad deals that will reach onlne subscribers, and for how many seconds.
Since the Tribune Co. agreed to acquire Times Mirror Co. 10 years ago this week in an $8 billion cash and stock deal the Los Angeles Times, long considered a serious national paper with a history of Pulitzer Prize winning reporters, continues to decline in circulation. This wrap-around stunt is an embarrassing affront to serious journalism.
.
97
Twitter Bytes
Monthly archives
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
Links
- Calbuzz
- Ron Kaye L.A.
- Cincinnati Beacon
- Talking Points Memo
- Salon
- Andrew Sullivan
- Marc Cooper
- L.A. Observed
- The Angry Anthropologist
- Slate




