Ed has a serious love/hate relationship with advertisements. Love: ads make it possible for magazines to exist. Hate: ads pay for space, which enables magazines to exist. So Ed started wondering if those producing the editorial content “owe” something to those paying the big bucks for ads. In an ideal world with unfaltering journalistic integrity the answer would be no, but sometimes it seems that ads have more say in editorial content than we’d like. Don’t get Ed wrong, he has high journalistic morals and knows you do as well, but has seen how ads can affect editorial content.
Ed’s heard from his friends how ads can drive editorial content – sometimes in a subtle way, sometimes is a major way. For example, one of Ed’s friends was recently told that a certain brand had to be included in a list of travel accommodations for a feature, and another friend who works in digital was told that coverage of a certain person had to be taken off the homepage during an advertiser’s presence – yikes, this all sounds pretty editorially invasive to Ed. Furthermore, do editors even have a say or choice in the matter?
So with ads sometimes (hopefully a very small percentage of the time!) affecting editorial content, Ed’s wondering if this will only increase with the current state of dwindling ad pages. All media hounds are talking about these days are the lack of ad pages and thinner issues, which Ed thinks might pump up ad-driven content. What do you think – have you experienced ads creeping into editorial content, do you think the sparse amount of ad pages will affect this even more, and can editors say no to this pressure? Seriously, Ed wants to know what you think.
– Ed
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Saturday, September 27, 2008
To Pay or Not to Pay
Babies. From Angelina Jolie to Clay Aiken, it seems that everyone's having them these days. Call it Hollywood's hottest trend. Unfortunately, celebrity weeklies are eating it up. It's become the norm for magazines to pay millions for pictures of Hollywood's elite little tikes. So Ed got to thinking: Why are the pictures so desirable? And is it justifiable for mags to pay that much -- or at all?
Ed's come to a few conclusions of his own. First, celebrity babies in the U.S. are held in the same esteem as royalty in other countries. Ed's envisioning those moments when a European princess comes to the top of a large staircase and shows her child to the press for the first time. (A similar incident occurred in America involving Michael Jackson and a balcony, but it wasn't as well-received.) Let's face it: Whether we agree or disagree, there is a demand for these pictures. After all, magazine covers featuring a celebrity and their child sell better than most other covers. Ed's not defending celebrity weeklies; he's just putting the facts out there.
Secondly, Ed decided that maybe more of the fault lies with the celebrities themselves. Not only are they allowing a magazine to pay for a picture of their child, they're also in some cases pocketing the cash. (Like they need it, right?) Ed has to give credit to Angelina and Brad for at least donating the money to charity. And Halle Berry showed what she's made of when she refused to be pictured with her baby girl, Nahla.
But as always, Ed will let you draw conclusions of your own. What do you think of the celebrity baby craze? Are celebrities exploiting their children? And more importantly, has the issue harmed the public's perception of magazines?
Love,
Ed
Ed's come to a few conclusions of his own. First, celebrity babies in the U.S. are held in the same esteem as royalty in other countries. Ed's envisioning those moments when a European princess comes to the top of a large staircase and shows her child to the press for the first time. (A similar incident occurred in America involving Michael Jackson and a balcony, but it wasn't as well-received.) Let's face it: Whether we agree or disagree, there is a demand for these pictures. After all, magazine covers featuring a celebrity and their child sell better than most other covers. Ed's not defending celebrity weeklies; he's just putting the facts out there.
Secondly, Ed decided that maybe more of the fault lies with the celebrities themselves. Not only are they allowing a magazine to pay for a picture of their child, they're also in some cases pocketing the cash. (Like they need it, right?) Ed has to give credit to Angelina and Brad for at least donating the money to charity. And Halle Berry showed what she's made of when she refused to be pictured with her baby girl, Nahla.
But as always, Ed will let you draw conclusions of your own. What do you think of the celebrity baby craze? Are celebrities exploiting their children? And more importantly, has the issue harmed the public's perception of magazines?
Love,
Ed
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Does the political race equate a media race?
Is it just Ed, or is the media getting more and more attention-and slack-as the race for the new president-and ratings-gets closer-and more heated? Though Ed would like it to first be known that he’s non-partisan, he can’t help but notice the scrutiny being placed on news networks, such as Fox 29, for being what many are calling biased. Between news segments, talk shows, articles, YouTube videos, and endless blogs, it seems everyone has something to say about “what’s being said” about this year’s presidential candidates and issues.
Now, Ed knows it’s not terribly uncommon for media outlets and members of the press themselves to be placed under the microscope during such significant events, especially when covering differing political views and many controversial topics, but perhaps with the announcement of John McCain’s VP pick, many are questioning more than ever before whether the face of the media- and America- might be changing.
Between recent articles like “Sarah Palin’s Family Drama” in People and “John McCain’s Vice President Sarah Palin: Babies, Lies & Scandal” in Us Weekly, daily water polls addressing Palin’s readiness to become VP despite her daughter Bristol’s teen pregnancy, news of Lindsay Lohan’s politically-based blogs (come on!), and now constant coverage of the so-called “lipstick incident,” which recently served as the main source of entertainment for one of Ed’s fellow bus riders and her friends via BlackBerry, it seems no one is safe-and the media is left to blame.
One huge example of this is the recent boycott Oprah is facing from talk show viewers and magazine readers upset that she won’t have Palin on her show, which has now lead to countless posts on her website and even magazine subscription cancellations.
What do you think of the recent 2008 Election coverage? Do you think that the media has a responsibility to report on any, and all, facts pertaining to a political candidate and their families or does a certain type of so-called tabloid-like coverage in a race to get the story first actually serve to minimize a network or publication’s credibility by addressing scandals at the cost of the often deemed real issues at hand?
Or is it that the media is simply getting a bum rap in a new age where the blogosphere and the ability to self-broadcast have taken the center stage resulting in news (subject to interpretation) spreading faster than ever before? Tell Ed what you think here!
Now, Ed knows it’s not terribly uncommon for media outlets and members of the press themselves to be placed under the microscope during such significant events, especially when covering differing political views and many controversial topics, but perhaps with the announcement of John McCain’s VP pick, many are questioning more than ever before whether the face of the media- and America- might be changing.
Between recent articles like “Sarah Palin’s Family Drama” in People and “John McCain’s Vice President Sarah Palin: Babies, Lies & Scandal” in Us Weekly, daily water polls addressing Palin’s readiness to become VP despite her daughter Bristol’s teen pregnancy, news of Lindsay Lohan’s politically-based blogs (come on!), and now constant coverage of the so-called “lipstick incident,” which recently served as the main source of entertainment for one of Ed’s fellow bus riders and her friends via BlackBerry, it seems no one is safe-and the media is left to blame.
One huge example of this is the recent boycott Oprah is facing from talk show viewers and magazine readers upset that she won’t have Palin on her show, which has now lead to countless posts on her website and even magazine subscription cancellations.
What do you think of the recent 2008 Election coverage? Do you think that the media has a responsibility to report on any, and all, facts pertaining to a political candidate and their families or does a certain type of so-called tabloid-like coverage in a race to get the story first actually serve to minimize a network or publication’s credibility by addressing scandals at the cost of the often deemed real issues at hand?
Or is it that the media is simply getting a bum rap in a new age where the blogosphere and the ability to self-broadcast have taken the center stage resulting in news (subject to interpretation) spreading faster than ever before? Tell Ed what you think here!
Saturday, September 6, 2008
The Entitled Generation?
Ed was at a lunch recently with a bunch of big shot magazine editors and the subject turned, as if it often does when Ed is in the room, to "today's generation." What does Ed think about kids today? asked a couple editors at the table. Ed knew what they thought just by the tone of their question.
The conventional wisdom is that recent graduates and young editors in the industry -- the tail end of Gen Y -- are spoiled, selfish and entitled. Before Ed could even answer the question, one editor went on to share a story about a recent graduate who asked her to write a letter of recommendation for a job in her company and then when she was offered the job, she turned it down to stay at a competing magazine. Even worse, the candidate didn't apologize to the editor who'd done her the favor. Ed agrees that the situation was in bad form. But what is most disturbing isn't that this one young woman acted like a spoiled brat, it's that the rest of the editors at the table nodded along, mumbling that the story was "typical" of "this generation."
Ed meets a lot members of this generation. And for the most part he finds them humble and willing to work hard. Sure, there are some who have an air of entitlement. One intern comes to mind who argued with Ed (who you know is also an editor at a magazine like all of his staff) for several days (!) about why he deserved a byline for a story he only contributed one quote to. But those incidents are rare. And Ed believes that this generation gets a bum rap.
Most of you reading this blog are young editors and recent grads. What do you think? Do you think your generation is spoiled and entitled? Are a few folks ruining your generation's reputation for the rest of you? Or is this just a case of the typical old people stereotype of "kids today" that happens with every new generation? Ed wants to hear your thoughts.
xoxo,
Ed
The conventional wisdom is that recent graduates and young editors in the industry -- the tail end of Gen Y -- are spoiled, selfish and entitled. Before Ed could even answer the question, one editor went on to share a story about a recent graduate who asked her to write a letter of recommendation for a job in her company and then when she was offered the job, she turned it down to stay at a competing magazine. Even worse, the candidate didn't apologize to the editor who'd done her the favor. Ed agrees that the situation was in bad form. But what is most disturbing isn't that this one young woman acted like a spoiled brat, it's that the rest of the editors at the table nodded along, mumbling that the story was "typical" of "this generation."
Ed meets a lot members of this generation. And for the most part he finds them humble and willing to work hard. Sure, there are some who have an air of entitlement. One intern comes to mind who argued with Ed (who you know is also an editor at a magazine like all of his staff) for several days (!) about why he deserved a byline for a story he only contributed one quote to. But those incidents are rare. And Ed believes that this generation gets a bum rap.
Most of you reading this blog are young editors and recent grads. What do you think? Do you think your generation is spoiled and entitled? Are a few folks ruining your generation's reputation for the rest of you? Or is this just a case of the typical old people stereotype of "kids today" that happens with every new generation? Ed wants to hear your thoughts.
xoxo,
Ed
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)