Advertising is expected, but when it begins to intrude too much then magazines will stay on the shelf. I also get National Geographic, ads in the front, ads in the back, and the majority of articles in between uninterrupted by ads. For me, the more intrusive an ad is, the less likely I am to purchase that advertisers goods because they have deliberately spoiled my reading experience.
__________________
-----------My Flickr-----------
The Earth has music for those who listen
✯
B&W doesn't, as far as I know, stay on the shelves. People do buy it. (Funnily enough, I bought more than one copy of the last issue....).
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I somehow suspect that the revenue for National Geographic doesn't arise from advertising alone. However it does get it's money, you don't seriously believe that B&W runs on the same footing, do you? You're comparing the QE2 to a pedalo.
Having said that, as advertising space goes, National Geographic probably contains some of the most expensive advertising space there is. To be seen inside it's pages makes a very clear statement about your company and where it stands in the world. It's for the biggest of the big boys and they will be willing to pay a dodgy dictator's ransom to merely co-exist within such tastefully uncluttered, liberal, covers. I think Roland Barthes might have had one or two interesting observations to make regarding the significance of adverts and their placement in National Geographic. Yes, I know the pictures are amazing - but some might argue that someone else is paying a high price and it's not the one advertised on the cover.
As I said before, the placement of adverts is a publishing not an editorial issue. That's something you might take up with GMC (the publishers). The editorial team is provided with a 'flat plan' of the magazine and told where the adverts are going to go, and it's up to them to make sure the content fits around them - and that's that. As an editorial employee it would be plain stupid to argue. It would be like a bus driver deciding to take the scenic route for a change.
Are you actually saying that, if it weren't for the adverts, you might actually buy B&W?
Does that mean the content is good?
Jerry, take a look at the August issue (I'm sure you have considering the cover!). Open it. In the first 20 pages or so there are 5 full page ads. Then we get to the reader gallery which in recent months has that godawful Nova Darkroom graffiti across the bottom of SIX pages leading us to two more full page ads. I have stopped buying from Nova Darkroom purely because of this ugly ad that is now included in every magazine.
It makes the magazine look cheap and ugly, it distracts from the content of those pages.
Under Ailsa the magazine had a much more 'serious' feel. Now it just feels like an ad rag with a few articles thrown in.
__________________
-----------My Flickr-----------
The Earth has music for those who listen
✯
Andy, I think Jerry's point is that it's GMC as the publisher rather than the editorial team who determine where the advertising goes.
I'd also guess that at the moment what some people at GMC see as the right direction for the magazine is quite different to what we on "APUG" would suggest, and perhaps the editorial staff want as well.
We need to show there's support and a "niche" in the market place for this magazine, rather than continually complaining, otherwise we risk having no magazine at all rather than one that can expand and improve.
Ian
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG
have the option to remove this ad.)
When Ailsa was editing B&W most of the ads were concentrated in the back with only a few in amongst the articles, and there was no pig ugly Nova darkroom graffiti across six pages. That has changed only since she left. So forgive me if I am sceptical that the editorial staff have no say on ad placement.
__________________
-----------My Flickr-----------
The Earth has music for those who listen
✯
Reading between the lines Ailsa left and the advertising policy changed. It's none of our business why Ailsa decided to leave, but the advertising policy certainly changed and that policy continued under the new editor, but he was hired by GMC who own the magazine, and had to accept their terms when he took over.
Personally I can read & see hundreds of Nova adverts but I'd be very reluctant to use them again. Why - because the company has a major attitude problem, I used to call there regularly & spend a lot of money but that all stopped about 2 or 3 years ago. I won't use them again.
As a matter of interest I've just compared the April 2007 (#71) issue when Ailsa was still editor. There are 32 pages of full page ads plus a Perma Jet banner on all 6 pages of the Readers Gallery.
The current issue, August 2008 (#88) has 30 full pages of ads plus the Nova banner across all 6 pages of the Readers Gallery.
I would endorse that it's not the remit of the editorial staff on the selection of ads but the publisher, GMC Publications.
I wonder would people express what exactly they found of value in the current issue of B&W that made it worthwhile to part with their money. If not this issue, name the last issue that was value for money.
Linear Mode
