Re: [projectvrm] Theory of peak advertising

[Shannon Clark < >]

But the computer shopper's value WAS entirely the ads. 

As a regular buyer of that magazine in the 90's the "content" was useless. 

The ads however were gold - they were the reason to buy the magazine. 

Ads as content is something I think most publications failed to appreciate as 
they migrated online. Vogue is my goto example (but most fashion magazines as 
well) - people but those magazines largely for the ads but their online 
versions often stripped out all of that content. 

I did not buy the computer shopper for their articles or columns - I bought 
it for the detailed sales brochures from most computer makers all in one 
place. 

Shannon 

Sent from my iPhone

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
>