Are Ads on Covers Acceptable?

One day these magazine publishers are going to realize that consumers are their customers, not advertisers. You create the magazine for consumers. They reward you buy PAYING for the magazine because you provide them content. You then can take that magazine and offer another added benefit to consumers, providing them relevant advertising of products they may be interested in, without TRICKS or GIMMICKS. Unfortunately publishers have forgotten this and see advertisers as their true customers and create a vehicle for them (see Portfolio) and not for consumers, then pay sales agents (crews) to acquire subscribers for them or give the subscriptions away for pennies on the dollar. Then when nobody reads the magazine or advertising drops in a recession the cost to maintain the artificial circulation is too great and they shut down the magazine. Then people ask what went wrong...

I assume you mean "ads that are sold" as those cover blurbs are clearly point-of-sale ads to get readers to purchase the magazine -- or open it up. And those magazine logos are major efforts at building brands that are licensed on thousands of different types of non-magazine products (see: Martha Stewart) so I assume, you are not considering those logos are ads, even if they are "branding" and "marketing" efforts. And I assume you're not talking about the "cover" equivalent on the magazine's website, as every one of those magazine home page/covers are filled with ads that don't seem to be causing any ethical dilemma. And I assume you aren't talking about coverwraps because I get dozens of magazines each month that are wrapped in ads that cover the cover. And I assume you don't mean that Time and Newsweek should be held to the same ethical standards as, to repeat my example above, Martha Stewart's Living And I assume you are not suggesting that the New York Times and Wall Street Journal should not be allowed to enter the Pulitzer Prize competition anymore since they've started putting ads on their front pages. And I assume you are not suggesting that it tarnishes the integrity of the game of baseball because games are played in stadiums that have sold naming rights? Of course, the real answer to your question is, "It depends." (Sidenote: This topic always makes me think of David Foster Wallace's book, Infinite Jest, in which naming rights were sold to "years" -- as in, That happend in June of "The Year of the Depends")

Risky business, that, concessions and appeasement. Read on; the following is taken from ASME's statement (http://www.magazine.org/asme/statement-on-cover.aspx) on this issue: "The cover is the face of the magazine; it is not an advertising position. ... Using the cover to promote products other than the magazine itself weakens the power and effectiveness of the cover." Nuf said. Perhaps magazine publishers, designers, photographers and editors should insist that advertisers feature magazine logos, covers and other graphics on the advertiser's products. Level the playing field, eh?

It's less a matter of conflict with editorial or content that troubles me. As someone in the field, I tend to regard covers of magazines or books already an advertisement--for that magazine or book. Let's just recognize that the magazine or book is already advertising--itself--and not double-down on the ad content.

It's most interesting how the Money interests jumped in right away on the importance of "Business Opportunities." After all - most of the publishing companies are run by Accountants and Investors today - not surprising they would take the lead on making money more important than values! Not sure how this will turn out in the end - but at least for the interm the editorial interests seem to be weighing in! It's good there are SOME people left with values! I thought they were all fired!

I can't believe all the outmoded thinking I see within the publishing world. Advertisers ARE your customers now! Consumers are no longer. They are not going to pay for information that they get for FREE. Wait - let me say that one more time - FREE. However, advertisers will still pay to reach a targeted audience that rivals those in days past. Compare it to the list management industry: When you bought a list in the past - you had no idea what you were getting - sure, you knew their first and last name. You knew their phone number and e-mail address. But you didn't KNOW them. And that's what makes social networks so special. Now when you have a list of names, you know their personality by the tone of their posts, you know what they like and dislike - all from a "FREE" product focused on your precious consumer. And by the way, this post is being written by someone from the "ME" generation. Hopefully it will make the old blood stop and think. Good luck to all!

The cover ought to be sacrosanct. However, many would consider it just another editorial page. "If done right" is the key. There must be a clear separation between what is content and what is advertising so that the reader will know the difference. Clarity, transparency, and the word "advertisment" above the ad if that helps make the distinction easier to understand. As always, there are risks, e.g. less readership.

Rex Hammond's comment is well said. However, I believe that a well-designed research study would inform the debate by bringing the voice of the consumer (not just that of the experts) to bear. After all, don't we live in an age where the consumer is in control?

I have one question for all of you....why can a homepage of a website have 3-5 ads on it, and not a magazine? Or why can there be blatant product placement on TV (Ala American Idol, Glad on Top Chef) and is accepted. Magazines need to be innovative like other forms of media, if newspapers can have cover advertising (and why isn't there pushback on this?), magazines should be introducing even more creative units to keep up with their tv, internet and newspaper counterparts...

Let's ask the Wall Street Journal if ads on the front page are ok.

It's that thinking that is killing the magazine business. You are "assuming" consumers will not pay. Consumers will not pay for garbage. They will spend money if they feel they are getting quality in return. There are free websites that offer Fantasy Sports yet the majority of users PAY for Fantasy Sports services. The Wall Street Journal has no problem CHARGING money to consumers to access their content. If you give the consumers quality and don't muck it up with advertising that is intrusive or attempting to conceal itself as editorial, they will pay. The other problem is there are TOO MANY MAGAZINES! There is something like 7,000 magazines out there. There isn't enough of a magazine buying base to support that many. That's why most publishers give away the magazine and hope advertising can cover the costs and make a tiny profit. Well guess what. Not happening.

I'll tell you why. Most users ignore ads on websites or are blocking them. Do you not remember the outcry over pop-up ads?. Websites were losing visitors because of it and most reputable websites have either abandoned the practice or limit the volume. Click rates are non-existent and the average CPM is below $1. So the web is doing a great job. Oh I mean Google and Facebook are doing a great job. How about all those other millions of websites? How are they doing? One reason it's ok to have ads on a homepage is the homepage does not sell the website! The cover of a magazine is designed to sell the product to the consumer. It's a preview into the magazine. Besides, any web page is a homepage if it's the first page you go to. Google drives most traffic to websites but it's not driving them to the homepage. As for Newspapers, they are only doing it out of desperation. It's not going to work. If consumers are not buying the newspaper, who is seeing the ad on the cover? And how is that going to entice someone to buy the newspaper? They are going out of business because consumers do not see any value in paying for their content. Which means they have a content/value problem. If they stop putting up their content for free on the web, people will come back to buy the newspaper. Or maybe they should just abandon print and be solely a website, but charge money for it. If you have content of value they'll pay. If not oh well. As for TV, product placement can work if it's woven into the story. Most consumers don't have a problem with product placement on TV because it's usually in context. The second it no longer is, consumers will not be happy about it. Plus product placement on TV used to be the norm. Jackie Gleason used to hawk Buicks during the Jackie Gleason Show. Desi Arnez hawked cigarettes during I Love Lucy. So with TV it's been a part of it's history. But most consumers are not paying for those TV shows. So sure if you give away content, consumers are willing to deal with some advertising. But look at HBO. People PAY for HBO and there are no ads. They start putting in ads and you'll see people bail on paying for HBO content. You need an engaged audience if you want to attract advertisers. Giving away magazines for free does not give you an engaged audience. Providing compelling content free of gimmicks gets you a paid audience. Once you have that, you can take it to advertisers. If they balk, big deal, you're making money from the consumers who are paying for your content.