Money talks
By David MacGregor,
I went to the launch of Blood magazine last night. It is an initiative by the Magazine Publishers Association to provoke interest in enhancing creativity in magazine advertising.
I hope it works.
Casting my mind back to the days when I actually created ads for a living there was nothing more exciting to me than the opportunity to create a double page spread in a glossy consumer magazine. My favourite was the Listener (it was the same size Metro is today. The laminated machine proofs looked sensational in my portfolio).
Today it seems most attention is on television advertising. Apparently it is sexier.
For me the problem with TV was that there were too many people involved. As creative director I took great pleasure in spending more time with a prospective art director or copywriter’s print book than their show reel. Looking at their print work I could tell whether or not they had a command of their craft. Looking at their TV work I couldn’t be sure.
Of course there is a real talent to making television commercials. Most often it is visible in very simple ideas, beautifully executed. But it is the execution that is problematic. There are simply too many steps in the process, too many vested interests (client’s, directors, budgets). Matters often get out of hand.
Looking around the room last night at the, largely, advertising crowd, I was surprised by how few people in the business look familiar to me. There is a whole new wave of talent.
Some of it is evident in the Blood magazine. The model for the publication is to hand the mantle of editorship to the winner of the best ad in the mag. Andy Blood transfused the role to a team from Mojo who produced a nice little idea about land mines (ketchup sachet with message printed on).
As a magazine publisher I applaud the initiative to encourage a better calibre of ads in mags. But, somehow, I have a feeling that issue one will be the n’est plus ultra. The one and only. In a way it is the inverse of one of my favourite magazines–Viewpoint–a book about trends in fashion and marketing. Viewpoint carries no ads, so costs over a hunndred dollars per issue. In the case of Blood magazine there is little substantial content, aside from the ads, and no-one wanted to talk about the cost.
Inspite of the silence, money talks.
Comments
Julian Andrews
David
Thanks for mentioning Blood here. As one of the people involved in it's creation I am keen to get as much dialogue going about it as possible.
Because that's the whole point of the iniative. The Magazine Publishers Association wants to promote magazines - to one of the most jaded audiences imaginable - advertising creatives.
I have to dispute your assertion that there's no editorial content in it though. Look again, and I hope you'll find a whole lot of stuff that has nothing to do with advertising at all - poems, short stories, drawings, plays and other emphemera - all chosen by the editor because it had some relevance to him.
Blood showcases three things for the MPA: three strengths of the magazine medium.
1) the power of the editor as trusted friend, valued opinion, and source of gossip.
2) the unique ability magazines have to target niche audiences, in this case, creative-types like you guys.
3) the way in which advertising doesn't interrupt a magazine, but rather adds to the editorial environment.
Whether you love Blood or hate it, the most important thing to the MPA was that we got your attention. If you think it sucks, win next year's competition, and show Andy how it should be done.
And believe me, there will be another one in 2007, although it will have another title - one dreamt up by this year's competition winners - Emanuelle and Guy.
Copies of Blood are being mailed out to creative directors and magazine industry reps early next week.
Anyone else who wants a copy should just email me on julian@jonespublishing.co.nz and I'll get one off to you.
Dave, thanks again for talking about us.
Cheers
Julian
David
I agree in principle with most of your remarks. If you read my comments carefully you'll see there is no criticism of Blood Magazine. I think there is much to admire and some to enjoy.
As a fan of magazines (magazine junkie) for most of my life - one of first obsessive experiences was to attempt to import an American rock magazine called Circus in the 1970's as a personal subscription. I needed government approval to send my hard earned milk run money (about $9.00 per year) overseas-I have never liked ads that interrupt my enjoyment of the content with fold outs and different stocks. And, unless there is some inherent value in a sample tipped in, like the music CD in issue one of Idealog, then it jsut bugs me.
Nowhere in media is it more important that magazine advertising is highly relevant to the reader, rather than simply virtuoso intrusion–even if it means more revenue for me as publisher. Execution will never win over consumer insight and affinity in creating outstanding advertising. People do enjoy ads in mags, but not when they distort the publication's inherent character.
Ben
I think the whole point of Blood is that the ads constitute content. It's targetted at creatives to showcases great ad creative. So in that respect you could say there are no ads in Blood, only good content. Anyway I think it's a bloody great read.
Anonymous comments on this post are disabled. Please sign up to post a new comment.