You are currently browsing the archives for July, 2009.
Advertorials — those multi-page advertising sections in magazines — have never made sense to me. Given that advertisers continue to buy them, though, I’m guessing they must work at some level. But who actually reads them?! Now, thanks to @NOTCOT, I’ve joined their ranks. Here are Bugs Bunny, Aquaman, Batman and others pimping tasty Hostess snacks in old-school comic advertorials.
“This ad for Procter & Gamble’s Rejoice conditioner uses the tangled mess of power lines in Bangkok to get its message across.”
Every time we get together — at ChasNote Tweetups, ChasNote smart mobs, etc — you all tell me you want more coverage of shoe advertising. Well, here you go.
Gabor: Fits Perfectly. And 29 other great print ads for shoes at Soft@lize.
From Phoenix New Times:
“A study released by the Department of Research and Economic Affairs at Arizona State University found that subliminal advertising through product placement in movies is becoming more effective than ever, which of course means advertisers are going to start doing it…a lot.”
Among other benefits, the professors at ASU observed a dramatic rise in the stock prices of company’s that successfully executed product placement in movies. Brands invested $722 million in product placement in movies in 2005. By 2010, the ASU team estimates spending will rise to $1.8 billion.
“surely even the recession can’t explain this many lost ad pages — the dominant source of magazine income and measure of their financial health. Monthlies’ ad pages through their August issues had already sunk 22%, according to the Media Industry Newsletter, with drops topping 40% at Dwell, Ebony, Men’s Journal, Town & Country, Gourmet, National Geographic Traveler, Veranda, Saltwater Sportsman, Teen Vogue, Sound & Vision, Wired and others. Then ad pages in fashion and beauty titles’ big September issues — the most important month for them and for their advertisers — fell by double digits for nearly everyone.”
New York Times deputy managing editor Jonathan Landman tells The Observer: “nothing about the Web has changed the front page of the paper in any fundamental way.”
Odd, isn’t it? I agree with The Business Insider: “Web editors simply must pay attention to readers’ clicks for two obvious reasons. It’s the main way readers can show what kinds of stories they care about.”
Meanwhile, what’s this NYTimes prototype?
From Ad Age:
“The cost of getting individual hand-held users to respond to a recent mobile ad campaign ranged from 67 cents to $85 dollars each, according to Michael Collins, CEO of the Joule mobile marketing agency. ….he cited the example of wild cost variations to emphasize the barriers of complexity and inconsistency that continue to hobble to growth of the mobile ad industry.”
Forrester’s Josh Bernoff publishes his firm’s latest findings on ad spending and the share of that spending that will go to online. From his column in Ad Age:
“In this recession, marketers have learned that interactive marketing is more effective, and advertising less effective, per dollar spent. While budgets for online have decreased, they decreased less than other budgets. Six out of ten marketers we surveyed agreed with the statement ‘we will increase budget for interactive by shifting money away from traditional marketing.” Only 7% said “we have no plans to increase our marketing budget.’ ….More than half of the marketers we surveyed said that effectiveness of direct mail, TV, magazines, outdoor, newspapers, and radio would stay the same or decrease within three years. In contrast, well over 70% expected the effectiveness of channels like created social media, online video, and mobile marketing to increase. The result is that digital, which will be about 12% of overall advertising spend in 2009, is likely to grow to about 21% in five years. Along the way overall advertising budgets won’t grow much.”