Six pages of Audi Advert??? You can keep it!

aquaholic

aquaholic

Well-Known Member
Joined
17 Jul 2004
Messages
1,151
Location
London
Visit site
Sorry too much for me to take, I am no longer paying £4.30 for Yachting Monthly to look at car adverts, I could live with a 6 page ad for something marine related.
Will spend my money on another yachtie mag.
 
aquaholic said:
Sorry too much for me to take, I am no longer paying £4.30 for Yachting Monthly to look at car adverts, I could live with a 6 page ad for something marine related.
Will spend my money on another yachtie mag.
Click to expand...
Its all about audience targeted advertising or whatever the ad luvvies call it.

It doesn't cost anything to turn the page until you get to an article that interests you and I am sure that Audi paid handsomely for the ad so I really don't mind at all.
 
Demographics old boy. The advertising planners have deduced that us yachties are in the group that would be interested in buying, have bought or have owned in the past an Audi. Probably AB (C1 maybe). Then there's the grey panthers as we're known, very difficult to sell to as we've learned not to believe the bolloxs, normally highish income or retired with wealth. Obviously we fit in that catagory too.
The ad must have cost thousands to place and wasn't a very good use of the 3 double page spreads. No relevance to the media and its readers at all, you could take that ad and put it in any mag. This is the problem with advertising today, it tries to speak to the world and as consumers it's not how we buy things. Which is why it makes us think "what the hell is that doing in there?" instead of "Wow Audi really understand us, I might consider buying one of those next time I want a new car". The creative department of Bartle Bogle Heggerty (If that's who still does audi) must be furious at not being given the brief "we want an ad to appeal to boatie types, 3 DOUBLE PAGE SPREADS".
I wouldn't let it bother you too much though at least it paid a few salaries and helped IPC to produce the mag. Next time Audi give me a PM and I'll do you something relevant to your TMA.
 
Chill out !!

As I flicked through the 6 pages my thought process was ...

Eh? ... Naff plastic sculpture? ... turn page .... Carglass Advert? ..... turn page ..... Oh it's a rather fussy looking headlight, what a waste of advertising space .. hmmm it's Audi ..... turn page .... I wonder how many issues I have to buy to collect the entire parts bin? Perhaps we get a free ring binder to keep them all in? :D

And a few seconds later I was on Pu Woods and her indestructable anodes.

All relatively painless with no effect on my blood pressure .... :)
 
I understand the reasoning behind, but as a consumer I simply choose to no longer pay to look at adverts that have nothing to do with with my interest. A flick through in smiths will suffice.
:)
 
aquaholic said:
I understand the reasoning behind, but as a consumer I simply choose to no longer pay to look at adverts that have nothing to do with with my interest. A flick through in smiths will suffice.
:)
Click to expand...
You don't "pay to look at adverts".
If anything, the advertisers pay you to look at the adverts, by allowing the magazine to exist at a cover price that probably doesn't cover the cost of printing, binding and distributing.
 
timbartlett said:
You don't "pay to look at adverts".
If anything, the advertisers pay you to look at the adverts, by allowing the magazine to exist at a cover price that probably doesn't cover the cost of printing, binding and distributing.
Click to expand...

Are civil servants in charge? :p

Metro, The Evening Standard, All At Sea, ... all seem to be doing well FOC.
 
Guapa said:
Are civil servants in charge? :p

Metro, The Evening Standard, All At Sea, ... all seem to be doing well FOC.
Click to expand...

That, if I may say so, is a typical civil service attitude.
Something is not "free" just because someone else pays for it.
The examples you mention are all paid for exclusively by adverts.

If YM (or any other glossy magazine) carried less advertising, it would have to either cut back its contents or paper/print quality (like All at Sea, Metro, or the Evening Standard), or increase its cover price.

Unlike the civil service, it cannot just get some puppet minister to sign off a piece of secondary legislation that will pull in a bit of extra cash whenever it feels like it.
 
timbartlett said:
That, if I may say so, is a typical civil service attitude.
Something is not "free" just because someone else pays for it.
The examples you mention are all paid for exclusively by adverts.
Click to expand...

Guess what? I wasn't born yesterday.
I do realise that adverts pay for All At Sea, Evening Standard, etc...
And, I read both.

What I object to is being asked to pay for a magazine that reads like an advert. YM and PBO seem to be editorially castrated for fear of offending advertisers.

Time to choose: be truly editorially independent - advertisers be damned - or continue to spout info-mercials.
Should IPC go down the first road I would be more than willing to fork out more for a copy I will actually read and trust.
 
Last edited:
Guapa said:
Time to choose: be truly editorially independent - advertisers be damned - or continue spout info-mercials.
Click to expand...

For editorially independent yottie stories, go Sailing Anarchy http://www.sailinganarchy.com

For nice, safe inoffensive stories, go Yachting Monthly
http://www.ybw.com

Seemples!
images
 
Boreades said:
For editorially independent yottie stories, go Sailing Anarchy http://www.sailinganarchy.com

For nice, safe inoffensive stories, go Yachting Monthly
http://www.ybw.com
Click to expand...
(1) Why, if boats are all awful, and the entire marine trade is a bunch of shysters, do you guys carry on sailing?
And if the boats are not awful, and the marine trade is generally not populated entirely by con men, then why do you seem to think that every magazine article ought to pretend that they are, and that because they don't they must be involved in some kind of whitewash job?
======
(2) If you are convinced that advertising somehow influences editorial, why do you object to adverts for products that are not even mentioned in the editorial? Surely it's the adverts for marine products you should be objecting to?
======
(3) have you noticed that www.sailinganarchy.com is (a) a website, and therefore has no print or distribution costs and (b) american? It is operating, in other words, in a totally different environment.

But it is still carrying quite a lot of advertising (about 50%). And the editorial includes such gems as: "The result is that he can sail the boat upwind in a totally amazing way, just by the feel of the wind on his face and the angle of heel."
Wow that's like, er wow, er totally amazing. No Instruments, eh? Wow, Waddya know!
 
planteater said:
Six pages of Audi or four pages of Land Rover? It's a tough choice.
Click to expand...

Same Land Rover, I suspect, bearing different false plates in both Yachting Monthly and PBO - so much for their editorial independence of each other. You might think that if approached by Land Rover to do a sponsored article the editor of one might at least ask whether the same offer had been made to the other magazine in the stable - or don't IPC want people to buy both magazines.
 
An interesting thread.
There is definitely an increasingly dull-headed acquiescence afoot that accepts irrelevant and intrusive advertising as a fact of economic life - the 'if you didn't have advertising then you'd have to pay £x more for your magazines, radio and TV programs' blah blah, if you like. It's carp, of course. Yup, I'm sure many folks would baulk at paying £10 for decent ad-lite monthly mag - much in the same way that they would prefer to spend £2.99 on a factory farmed Tesco chicken instead of a tenner for a free range (tastier) equivalent. You pays yer money, etc.

Fact is advertising sucks the brain dry. I mean how can one accept that it's great to watch a film on TV that is interrupted by ad breaks every 18 minutes? Are we not morons? And how on earth can we understand why an American hamburger company is an 'official sponsor' of the England football team.? Or is it Coke(!) or Mars?
And yes, I thought the Audi ad in YM was indecipherably nonsensical. The next new car I buy will now not be an Audi. A Skoda, methinks.
 
zaragozo said:
Yup, I'm sure many folks would baulk at paying £10 for decent ad-lite monthly mag - much in the same way that they would prefer to spend £2.99 on a factory farmed Tesco chicken instead of a tenner for a free range (tastier) equivalent.
Click to expand...

So only the lowest common denominator should be catered for?
I hope not - there's enough dumbing down around as there is.

I'm prepared to pay extra for quality - in fact, if I can't have the best, I'd rather have nothing at all.
What's better value: a tenner for something worthwhile or a fiver for drivel?
 
(1) Why, if boats are all awful, and the entire marine trade is a bunch of shysters, do you guys carry on sailing?
And if the boats are not awful, and the marine trade is generally not populated entirely by con men, then why do you seem to think that every magazine article ought to pretend that they are, and that because they don't they must be involved in some kind of whitewash job?
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody is saying that all boats are awful and that the entire marine trade are shysters. But the silence on the BA Peters debacle as been deafening.

It would not be too much to ask for some kind of 'lessons learnt' article based on the cases where people have lost substanital sums of money.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top