Okay, it was more like a slap on the wrist.
I recently wrote about how Target busted out $1M and basically took over all of the ad space in the August 2005 issue of The New Yorker.
Well, now the American Society of Magazine Editors has scolded the magazine for violating one of its society's rules which states that the sole advertiser not in any way influence the editorial content of that issue.
Fair enough. I'm all about full disclosure and what not.
Some - including Columnist Larry Lazare at The Chicago Sun-Times - have criticized The New Yorker/Target Corporation "synergy issue" (you have me to thank for that term), calling it “the most jaw-dropping collapse of the so-called sacred wall between editorial and advertising in modern magazine history.”
Yeah. And how does he expect print media to make any money? Oh yeah, that's right. From selling advertising space.
C'mon, no sacred walls have been broken here. No editorial boundaries have been breached. If Lazare complains about this, I'm sure he's also gotta complain about people buying one- and two-page spreads in the New York Times. Or even in his own paper.
Others in the industry have either found this to be a wonderful display of ingenuity in advertising, or a non-issue.
Others have more or less shrugged, suggesting that the publishing industry faces bigger issues, like rising advertiser demands for a print version of product placement. ASME is still in the process of revising its guidelines to address such activities; its new guidelines are expected to be released at the American Magazine Conference next month.In any case, I'm sure it was a pretty kickass issue, seeing as how a lot of the Target ad artwork turned out. Plus, I'm not complaining - you know how I love me some Target.