LA Times to run ads on section fronts

I don't see this as too big a deal. Provided the ad doesn't dwarf the page, it shouldn't be too bad of a problem.

 

Front page ads are the norm. It just makes business sense and that's all.

 

We did some initial screaming when they sold 6 col by 3 inch banner ads across the bottom. They're just a fact of life. You have 18 inches less news hole, that's all. It doesn't affect design at all. It's a smaller page. No big deal.

 

What's worse than ads on the section fronts are the Weekly World News-ish stories that take up more than a half-page on the inside (not including a huge, page A3 teaser photo...)

I think this is the dumbest story I've ever seen in a major newspaper...

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-monroe2aug02,1,4682119.story?coll=la-headlines-entnews

 

Well, I would hit Marilyn-incarnated's daughter. I do know that.

 

The only section that should be ad-free is op-ed.

 

The more ads they sell, the longer we all have jobs. Pretty simple.

 

I don't know if I agree with that.
The NYTimes has ads on its second edit page and you can argue that the NYT has the most influential editorial page in the world.
Since every paper has the right to refuse an ad, that takes care of the objectionable stuff. My paper has refused ads, lots of ads actually.
You just need to know your readership and have local people making local decisions.

 

Another Tribune Co. paper -- the Newport News (Va) Daily Press -- sent out an email to the newsroom this afternoon saying they will be running six-column strip ads across the bottom of the section fronts.

Maybe the Trib is trying to cover the $2 million it gave to the Dodgers on Monday as a part of the Maddux trade.

 

frank i think you just figured out why our industry is dying! all this time, we've been making people lobby for ads instead of pay for them.

newspapers just might live!