Re: [projectvrm] Theory of peak advertising

[Doc Searls < >]

Wow: it still exists...

<http://www.ziffdavis.com/properties/computer-shopper>

I remember being among the many ad agency folk hosted by Bill Ziff at his 
manse high above Aspen, sitting still while he gently but firmly lectured us 
about the desire of his readers for hard information in the ads we did, and 
not for "pretty fluff that wins art awards and doesn't do shit for readers," 
or words to that effect. His point: save your arty adverising for Vogue and 
give our technical readers the technical facts they want.

But we did pull off some pretty artful branding moves. For example, making 
Peter Norton the star of Norton utilities ads, with his arms crossed and his 
sleeves rolled up. And, earlier, demonstrating the speed of a Racal-Vadic 
9600bps full-duplex modem that would "Send Moby Dick from coast to coast in 
less than 24 hours." That was a two page spread with a giant Magritte-like 
whale flying above a forest. Made quite a splash.

Doc


On Oct 12, 2013, at 9:57 AM, "T.Rob" 
<
 >
 wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Don Marti 
>> Magazine ads, though, don't peak.  Why?  Because they rely for
>> effectiveness on the amount the advertiser spends, as perceived by the
>> reader.  Signaling.
>> 
>> More ads make a magazine more valuable.  Instead of a death spiral like
>> spam or web adtech, there's a value-building cycle.  A new magazine can
>> rise if an ad there sends a strong signal.  (IMHO, good content has a
>> multiplier effect on that reader-perceived ad spend.) More ads mean more
>> money for content, more content means more readers, ad rates go up, and
>> everyone's a winner.  
> 
> I'm recalling Computer Shopper in the '90s.  The post carrier must have 
> hated that magazine.  It was like getting a giant phone book in the mail 
> every month.  A catalog of computer stuff interspersed with content.
> 
> -- T.Rob
>