Bloggers are taking note of advertisements placed by British Petroleum, this morning in Gannett's
Pensacola News Journal. The
Pensacola Beach Blog says a full-page BP ad (detail,
above) should have been more clearly labeled as a commercial promotion. "Indeed, the ad easily could be mistaken by some readers as a public service announcement,'' the blog says.
That post followed another local publisher's refusal to accept a similar ad from the oil giant. "BP’s monies would be better spent capping the leaks, cleaning up the oil spill and paying the claims of the communities, businesses and citizens hurt by this disaster,''
wrote Independent News Publisher
Rick Outzen.
[Image: Pensacola Beach Blog]
Kinda hard to tell whether it needed to be more clearly labeled as an advertisement without seeing the other half of the page, and the adjoining page, which the beach blog should have taken into consideration in its post. Alas, it didn't. Experience, and all.
ReplyDeleteBut knowing the PNJ typography, it's pretty doubtful it'd be mistaken for editorial content, even by somebody who was frantically trying to type up a zinger while keeping the other eye trained for tar balls in an effort to yell "FIRST!" as loudly as possible.
(And if you want to get technical: Font is wrong, punctuation in the headline, and the BP logo should give it away.)
As for whether the ad should have been accepted? Why not? (And again, if you're going to slam it, show the entire ad, in context.) If you're going to publicly trumpet turning down an ad, you should publicly state all the ads you have turned down in the past, and do so in the future. And not just when you want to climb on a fictitious ethical high horse.
Just another example of amateurs playing journalist and finding it easier to feign outrage than produce quality content.
I'm with 8:05. I don't understand why a newspaper would want to turn away an ad like this. Ads don't buy coverage. There doesn't appear to be an attempt to defraud. I'd have to see more before deciding whether it tries to mislead and/or whether it should have been more clearly labeled.
ReplyDeleteWhoever turns down an open-rate full page ad is an idiot. You get 15 other pages in the section to lambast, twist, spin, cajole, accuse or otherwise brandish your wordsmithing about the situation - that one page pays for all that ink.
ReplyDeleteWhat, you think they're going to come back as a regular advertiser? Must be nice to work for a paper where the bars and strip joints 2x2 ads provide enough revenue to throw away real money. The publisher doesn't want BP to spend money on an ad so they can concentrate their resources on the spill. You know, because BP barely makes any profits at all.
Get this - the publisher admits on his blog that he doesn't have the ad copy, and then he retypes what he feels is pertinent from the Pensacola News Journal. Sanctimonious jerk. But hey, Keith Olbermann talked to me, so I'm important....
PNJ has done some solid work on oil spill coverage.
ReplyDeletedoyle sux
ReplyDelete