Ads on the front page

We all understand the reason this is done. I just don't like it.

 

Dallas Mornings News sports page cover had a story about Danica Patrick and the Indy 500. 4-inch-high ad across the bottom of the page featured Ms. Patrick in an ad for upcoming race at Texas Motor Speedway.
In the jump, the story referenced the ad.
IJS

 

I've come to live with our B1 banner ad four times a week, but the problem: the banner ad always is from the local "racino," and I once ran a horse racing feature (yes, from racing at said racino) right above the ad and was lambasted by the publisher. I don't mind the ads, but when they dictate how you lay out section fronts and provide news to the readers ... that's a little much. Also, and this is a wholly separate rant, but do the good folks in advertising even proofread the ads? We have a fairly noteworthy bridge in town (bare with me) with a big car dealership on the other side. So, trying to sound neat, the ad reads "cross over the money-saving BRIDE today." Not "bridge," but "bride." And they routinely, heck always, misspell city names. That, I believe, hinders credibility more than B1 or A1 ads.

 

Hmm, we can raise some revenue for a company that's losing business at an alarming rate, or we can collect a bunch of certificates from some organization that really liked our "Barber Hangs Up Scissors After 52 Years" story.

Tough choice.

 

It's not the zero-sum game you make it out to be. As noted by myself and other, there are business reasons why not to run ads on the front page or section fronts. I do think you re-evaluate those positions as time goes on, but the basics of the "no-ads in front argument" aren't nearly as rooted in journalistic idealism as some think. They are rooted in business pragmatism, and reinforced by idealism.

Again, if the reader picks up a rag off the rack and sees the front covered with ads, his mind is going to say "Weekly Shopper/Thrifty Nickel" and he's going to take the paper less seriously. You've got to give the reader content as a means of selling the paper.

Like cutting staff to the point where it can no longer perform at a level where it adequately provides readers with the service they look for from a paper, prominently placing ads outside may give a paper short-term relief, but the long-term consequences are dire.

 

That's not a bad point, Brian, but then you have papers that don't allow A-1 ads in the print product but permit them in even more prominent spots on the Web home page -- at the top instead of just the bottom. If a message is being sent, which is it?

I appreciate your thought that the ads on the cover contribute to a loss of dignity that the readers will notice at least subconsciously. But, in my opinion, that dignity was sacrificed a long time ago with enormous centerpiece hammerheads, blaring news promos atop A-1 and an orgy of cutouts amid the "multiple points of entry" that have a pinball-machine aura on the cover and scream at the reader, "Hey, look here, moron! No, wait! Look here, too! And over there!" When the news-content parts of A-1 have a "Pimp My Cover" tone, I'm not sure there was much decorum to lose in the first place. Does an ad stripped across the bottom really overwhelm the carnival-barker, sell-sell-sell gimmicks atop it?

 

I see the Web as a completely different animal because there isn't the same finite amount of page space as you have on paper. You can put a banner ad at the top and have all the room in the world for all the content you want on the page. In fact, I would argue that more papers have a problem with cluttering their home page with too much stuff than they have with home pages that are dominated by a single ad.

Now, let me address your second graph. Again, I don't see this as "dignity" and journalistic ethics, but as business. It's a bottom line thing: If the consumer doesn't see evidence of a meat-and-potatoes product outside, what's going to make him think there's any news content anywhere else in the paper? The "pimp my cover" USA Today front page approach, while garish and arguably unprofessional, was/is doing just the opposite. They are trying to scream to the reader that the ENTIRE paper was full of stuff you can't afford to miss. It says "there's lots of news in here people. Drop your 50 cents and come read it!" The big ad in the middle of the page says "We don't have much news here people, so read about the half-off sale at mattress wholesalers gallery, because it's the best this 'newspaper' can come with..." It's just the opposite.

Apples and oranges.

 

You're talking about an ad that takes up about one-seventh of the page, at the bottom. That hardly "dominates" the page. There's still plenty of news hole.

 

you are correct on all accounts.

 

The NYT will have ads on the front page before too long, at this rate.

It's OK for small weeklies and such but dailies, no....but this is probably on its way to becoming an obsolete standard now.

 

Readers can't tell a weekly shopper from your newspaper? People that stupid aren't reading anything.

 

Ding, ding, ding, ding.

If you're not noticing them anymore then neither are readers. Front-page strips will fade away and be replaced by something more intrusive like the Detroit scenario.

And no one will be able to put that genie back in the bottle.

FWIW, my old rag seems to sell the Page 1 strip across the bottom about 75 percent of the time. The remaining inventory is used to promote its miscellaneous online and non-daily products.