The Toronto Star recently started wrapping its front section in ads, à la Metro (except the fold only extends halfway across the front page). Today's was a stark entreaty: "Don't buy an SUV." Okay, an environmental message, huh? We can live with our paper being wrapped in dispatches from the Suzuki Foundation. Then we unfolded it: "(Until you've seen the [brand and model].)" Beyond that, it's a pretty standard SUV ad, except one and a half times as wide as the paper itself.
This is offensive on a number of levels. Metro is 100% funded by advertisements, so it's understandable that they'd want to maximize the impact of those; plus, if you don't like a day's wrap, you just don't pick up the paper. The Toronto Star, on the other hand, is something people pay to read—subscribe to, even. Wrapping the "A" section in an ad makes the Star the newspaper equivalent of one of those DVDs which won't let you even get to the main menu (let alone watch the movie) until you've sat through several unskippable commercials. It is immensely contemptuous of its readers.
The other level of offense is the nature of the ad itself. While it's not surprising that an SUV ad would be so repellent, the fact that the Star would let itself be used as the vehicle for such a sales pitch shows a complete lack of respect for the writers and editors at the paper, most of whom really seem to want their journalism to make Toronto a better place. Of course, it's not at all uncommon for the Star (or any other paper) to run SUV ads—but to be DOMINATED by one in this manner is probably unprecedented in this city.
And here's the punchline: in our post about the Star's redesign, we wrote, "It's also going to be a bit skinnier, with an inch shaved off the width. The new size starts rolling off the presses in August, with all presses converted by October. In their somewhat overly ebullient press release, the new size is touted as 'easier to open' (wha?) and 'greener, more environmentally friendly.'"
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
Readers will never get back those 3 seconds it took to turn the page.
The Star is in its death throes... not only can they not afford the paper or ink they're publishing with, they're selling out the paper to anyone who'll give them money now. Wrap an ad around the paper? Sure! Give us money.
Who cares? It's just another nail in the coffin. Let the paper die already.
Nothing says "classy paper of record" like wrapping the front page of your journalistic integrity in an unavoidable ad. But—that's a six-figure buy, folks. Did subscribers get this too or was it just for the retail versions?
This is even worse than when magazines allow those full-page, cardboard-like, bound/tipped magazine inserts that prevent the reader from turning pages properly...unless it's to the ad.
Why did torontoist blur out the name in the ad? Is torontoist too disgusted by even the mere mention of Audi?
Also, "easier to open" in the new design refers to being able to hold the paper open without feeling like you're doing a yoga pose.
I just cancelled my Star subscription. I don't like the contents of the "new Star". Will these people understand that it's not about the design, it's about the contents!
MARIA (http://nakedknitgirl.ca)
Did subscribers get this too or was it just for the retail versions?
As near as I can tell, every version had it—even the ones displayed in the windows of the boxes.
Why did torontoist blur out the name in the ad?
I wanted to be able to chastize the Star without simultaneously rewarding the car company for their brashness by essentially rerunning the ad on our front page.
I just cancelled my Star subscription. I don't like the contents of the "new Star".
It seems that every month there is one less reason to read the Star, as opposed to the Globe or even the Post. For years, I justified my loyalty to the Star because it was bold enough to carry Antonia Zerbisias's media criticism column, which consistently covered issues that weren't mentioned (let alone seriously analyzed) anywhere else in the mainstream media. And then, for whatever reason, they decided last month to can it and have her cover "social issues and cultural affairs" instead. Just look at the difference in the headlines of the columns she wrote through June 9 and then the ones she wrote afterwards. (Although I must still give her much credit for managing to be nearly as subversive in her new role, particularly with her column on "femicide.")
Christopher Hume is now the last thread by which I'm hanging on to the Star. Well, him and their excellent City Hall coverage.
I stopped reading Metro when they started 'onion skinning' ads over the front page -- and writing self-congratulatory articles about how groundbreaking (or whatever) such a move is.
I also stopped reading Eye when they redesigned the paper to make ads and content indistinguishable.
Unfortunately, this style of in your face advertising works, or else they wouldn't be doing it. Though, I can imagine us coming to a breaking point within the next ten years. People are becoming increasingly aware of the (traditional) advertising forced upon them (Even if they are becoming less aware of their branded lifestyles). Eventually the thousands of giant Telus billboards may become a liability rather than a positive force.
The winners of course will be the companies that have jumped the anti-advertising bandwagon first. Take a look at threadless.com. They spend zero dollars on advertising, which in turn makes them money amongst the crowd that already has become aware of increasing advertising. They chose to stand out, by refusing to spend money to try to stand out.
The advertising of the future isn't going to be billboards, but hired goons. People that are paid money to tell their friends about how awesome their new telus phone is.
You think advertising is bad now? Just wait until it will be impossible to separate it from our very culture.
I subscribe to the Toronto Star, and I had it on my doorstep on Saturday morning - so yeah, home delivery readers had to come face to face with this atrocious ad as well.
9: Viral marketing like that has been around for at least 5 years. People hired to drink a certain beverage at a bar and talk to strangers about how good it is, that sort of thing. Nothing convinces people more than word of mouth.
I really hope it takes off, and traditional static advertising is replaced with more and more hired mouths. Why? Because you can't tell a billboard to fuck off.
Viral marketing is discussed at length in Naomi Klein's No Logo and that came out in 2000. So the concept of it is at least a decade old or so.
I think the increase in ads is in direct response to competition from the internet. Newspapers just aren't making the money they once were because no one cares about old news anymore. If people aren't buying your paper, you have to find another source for revenue generation. I think that if asked to choose between a large ad or no newspaper at all, I'd rather the advertisement. Besides, by now we've learned how to gloss over them with ease anyways.
For the past 6 weeks, i've been receiving the Star at my doorstep every morning (though strangely, not on Sundays) but I've never subscribed, nor asked for a trial run. A call to the circulation department after 1 week revealed it was a promotional offering, and would run until the end of july. I requested to be taken off delivery. 5 weeks later (and about another 5 calls to circulation) and i am STILL getting this damn paper delivered, and it goes right into the recycling bin. Environmental? Riiiight. Nice try, Toronto Star.
Guest #12, there are always ways for any organization to make money beyond shoving advertising in people's faces; advertising is just way too easy. Torontoist could make a ton of money really quickly if we agreed to pop-up windows or those flash ads that cover what you're trying to read until you close them (or if we just had more spaces for advertising on the site, or if we agreed to write advertorials, or if allowed companies to buy or sponsor individual posts), and we've always decided not to do that.
And snailspace, be careful about that: a friend of mine who worked customer service for the Star (before being laid-off! yay!) said that if you don't cancel one of those kinds of subscriptions after the "promotional" periods ends, you may keep getting the paper and, as a little bonus, you may start getting billed for it. The same thing happens, or used to happen, at the end of people's subscriptions if they didn't call in and verbally confirm that they no longer wanted to receive the paper.
I do like how the unobscured part of the headline reads "audits flawed." It reminds me of this Family Guy exchange (via TV.com):
Peter: (reading his tax refund) Oh my god, it's better than I thought. An Audi! I'm gettin' a car!
Brian: Uh, Peter, there's a "t" in there. That says "audit."
Peter: No, Brian, it's a foreign car... the "t" is silent. (pauses) Sweet, I'm gettin' an Audi!
Chris: (lifting up his shirt and staring at his bellybutton) I have an innie.
And then, for whatever reason, they decided last month to can it and have her cover "social issues and cultural affairs" instead.
She was the one who decided to can it, I think, rather than the paper. I'm pretty excited about her new column. If we can't have Michelle Landsberg, this is the next best thing.
The Red Star as "paper of record"? Seriously? ?WOW do some people need to get out more and listen to opinions other than just those of their buddies in OCAP!
This is just of a piece of Eye being a "leftist" "alternative" weekly that's "anti-corporate" but subsists on escort ads and is part of a publicly traded, multibillion dollar multinational corporation where most of the earnings come from trashy romance novels. Papers are a rapidly failing businesses who are losing their major revnue sources - classifieds -to the internet, principally ebay and craig's list. Torontoist's opposition to ads in general is also really hilarious. The Star is going to be pursuing new revenue models faster than the Globe or the Post because it is more dependent on classifieds and low-end real estate and has worse demographics than the two national newspapers.
My schadenfreude meter will continue to be pegged at the travails of the Star and the despondence of Torontoist writers and commenters!
Of course they'd wrap it in the ads of such a fine SUV. Really, if I were to get a luxury SUV that would be it. Or perhaps a Cayenne or Tourreg V10. To be environmentally conscious, you could drive it once a week instead of seven.
You can't seriously think that since The Star has a subscription cost that it would be able to make any sort of money from that. The retail cost of the paper doesn't even cover the cost of printing. Comparing Metro to The Star is equally ridiculous; Metro gets all of its news and photographs from The Star, it is a much smaller paper, and it is not delivered to homes. In short, it is a lot cheaper to produce than The Star is.
It's also not the first time that there has been a gatefold on the paper, so it's a bit surprising that you decided now was the time to comment. Maybe it's part of your (admittedly deserved) hate-on for Audi from their recent ad campaign.
"While it's not surprising that an SUV ad would be so repellent, the fact that the Star would let itself be used as the vehicle for such a sales pitch shows a complete lack of respect for the writers and editors at the paper, most of whom really seem to want their journalism to make Toronto a better place"
Oh, come on. This is embarrassingly naive. I'm sure the salesperson who got Audi to purchase the ad was thinking "Great, I may get a bonus," not "Yes, I've found another way to disrespect the well meaning writers and editors of this great paper." I am equally sure that 99% of these writers and editors just flipped the gatefold over and read the paper, as did 99% of the readers. The writers and editors are allowed to leave if they find that working there is no longer in their best interests. Advertising in itself is not a bad thing. When you pick up a paper, you are accepting a certain amount of advertising.
Also:
Today's was a stark entreaty: "Don't buy an SUV." Okay, an environmental message, huh? We can live with our paper being wrapped in dispatches from the Suzuki Foundation.
You can stand advertisements if they match your thoughts and lifestyle, but not if they don't? I'm not negating the evil of SUVs, but you have to see the flaw in your argument.
The "Red Star"? Are you from Texas?
You can't seriously think that since The Star has a subscription cost that it would be able to make any sort of money from that. The retail cost of the paper doesn't even cover the cost of printing.
I don't doubt that. I wasn't arguing that it doesn't need advertising to support itself. But since you mention it, I have to wonder how much smaller the paper would be (and how much the cost of printing would be reduced) if it didn't carry advertising.
It's also not the first time that there has been a gatefold on the paper, so it's a bit surprising that you decided now was the time to comment.
It was the first time that I really noticed it. (Okay, well, the second time, after the Hairspray ad on Friday.) But then, I'm not usually the first person in my household to get to the paper in the morning, so it wouldn't surprise me if it's usually been removed by the time I wake up.
I'm sure the salesperson who got Audi to purchase the ad was thinking "Great, I may get a bonus," not "Yes, I've found another way to disrespect the well meaning writers and editors of this great paper."
Well, duh. I'm very surprised that you thought I was saying it was an intentional slight.
When you pick up a paper, you are accepting a certain amount of advertising.
Of course. But the key part of that sentence is "a certain amount." This, in my opinion, crossed the line.
You can stand advertisements if they match your thoughts and lifestyle, but not if they don't?
I can stand advertisements if they're reasonably appropriate to their context. A serious message about climate change seems much more in line with the stated objectives of the Star.
Not really our bailiwick, but we all need to remember that the media is a business, not, to quote the embattled Lord Black, a "pro-bono artistic happening." (and yes, he used exactly those words).
This is not to say that principles should be abandoned in service of corporate goals. Of course not. And at the Star, they're not. Whatever any of the other readers here may think, not a single publication in town comes even remotely close to covering civic issues as thoughtfully and as in-depth as the Star does. The Globe's Toronto section, ditto the Post's, are for dilettante quasi-urbanites; the Star is for those of us who actually live here -- all of here.
It's going to take a lot more than a blatant cash grab (which this is -- but remember, "not a pro-bono artistic happening) for us to throw the baby out with the bath water. Because we care abotu this town, and despite its many foibles, from what we can see, so does the Star -- more than any of its competitors, frankly.
Hmm, they've wrapped today's paper too. I guess this is gonna be a usual thing.
Nobody's slamming the Star for trying to make money; it's whether or not a trashy advertising technique is appropriate for the image they are attempting to cultivate for themselves. The next step after this is escort services and massage parlours.
We're don't know about that, Marc. Does a format really dictate content? Seems that the wrap is targeted quite specifically at high-end advertisers.
We're not big fans of the wrap, either, but we suspect 99% of people just flip past and don't even think about it. Certainly, it doesn't reflect badly on the paper's content (other things, like the sensationalistic crap that's been taking centre-stage lately does). It just obscures it.
We rememebr a similar brouhaha when all the dailies started running front-page banner ads downpage about a decade ago. Now they're the norm. Don't think for a second if the Star proves this to be strong, consistent source of ad revenue that every other daily won't follow suit. No leap of logic to guess that the STar got this idea from someone else, too.
Everyone's gotta get paid.