Wednesday, February 09, 2011

USAT | In another full ad wrap, it's now Dodge

Under corporate parent Chrysler, Dodge is a sister auto brand of Jeep, which bought the first controversial four-page ad wrapping USA Today's front page in July. That decision prompted USAT Founder Al Neuharth to sharply criticize Publisher Dave Hunke in a private letter that was eventually published by The New York Times.

Here's a photo of today's wrap, with the front page it hides:

The Dodge wrap followed the appearance of a small Chrysler ad atop USAT's Newsline column on Monday -- a promotion that wasn't labeled as advertising, contrary to industry practice.

26 comments:

  1. I'll bet single-copy sales will plummet today. A lot of people won't realize it's a newspaper & won't buy it.

    And at a buck-per-copy loss on the circulation side, I wonder how much this ad will add to the bottom line.

    I'm just sayin'.....

    Gath

    ReplyDelete
  2. I know this will NEVER happen BUT ... why don't they make these FREE or reduced price days when they wrap the covers? They can even say that "Today's USAT is brought to you in part by (insert advertiser name here)? Heck, they could probably get the advertisers to fork over a little more dough if it says they are paying for your free newspaper. In order to woo the consumer to buy the paper on these "wrap days" they have to make more effort with their marketing. It circ plumments on these wrap days, then it's doing no one any good.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Gath - nearly a million bucks for this sucker. Think we'll have a one million single copy dropoff?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Revenue = electricity. Electricity allows your computers to operate so you can write your nice little stories. You're welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  5. My only objection is it LOOKS so ugly! Dark, ink-smeared and unappealing. Dodge's "creative" should have looked at some proofs before going in this direction.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 4:30 Mine looked that way, too. But maybe it was the printing: perhaps it didn't look that way in the proofs?

    ReplyDelete
  7. No-because USA Today does not come even close to selling a million single copies on newsstands daily. If a district has 10,000 copies, it is likely that 6,000+ of those are hotel copies, which have no effect with a cover like this. Another 1,500-2,000 copies would be home delivery, colleges, etc-again, no effect. That leaves 2,000 single copy in play. If the sales loss is 10%, that is a 200 copy drop out of a typical 10,000 day, a small drop in the bucket for an ad bringing a 7 digit figure to USA Today. Again, this much needed revenue keeps people employed and the bills paid.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Saw it at Starbucks next to all the other newspapers. At first I got excited and thought, hmmm, this must be a VERY special edition to have an over-the-logo photo like that. Then I saw that it was an ad. So needless to day, I was not drawn in by the headlines. I totally get it about newspapers needing to find new ways to make money. But the message it sends to the average reader is this: ads are way more important to us than news/headlines. Forget about the damage it does to one-day sales. This damages the brand.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Interesting that Mr. Hunke ignored Al Neuharth's sage counsel. Things must be secure at the top of the USAT empire.
    As a journalist, I side with the founder on this one. Wrapping a newspaper in an advertising sends the wrong message to readers and potential readers. It suggests that the news they are buying is second in importance to the advertiser needs. Profiteering trumps all.
    So what if the feds had issued a massive recall of new Dodge and Chrysler cars the day that wrap was to run. How would Mr. Hunke and his new-world colleagues handle that one?
    Whatever he chose to do, readers would have to wonder if they're getting the truth in their USA Today. Or, were they being fed coverage designed to protect a big advertiser rather than inform the public of serious dangers with these cars?
    It is, as lawyers like to say, a very slippery slope. Perhaps the GOP would like to do a similar wrap for the five days preceding the next national election. And how might that detract from USAT's entry in the Pulitzer competition?
    Doesn't it seem like Mr. Hunke sold USAT's journalistic integrity for a million bucks? No? And if so, what the hell does he do when that money runs out? A hundred grand for a supportive editorial? Five hundred g's for a photo of your client on page one?
    Slippery, slippery slope, don't you think?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well it isn't as provocative and inspiring at the Chrysler Superbowl TV commercial. By a long shot.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'm critical of many a thing to do with Gannett - but it's flagged as an advert, it's paid for and it's not a regular event. Now sure there's a question to ask of what would have happened if there had been a major, earthshaking story that this wrap had hidden away from readers, and it's worth pointing out that if they did this on a regular basis, it would reduce sales, but as a once-in-a-while gimmick? Brings in money, probably doesn't hit the sales much in the long run. It does look more like the kind of thing that happens with free weeklies, though, I'll grant you.

    ReplyDelete
  12. If you're dumb enough to buy a ChryCo product right now, we have your target audience. We know ALL about "looks pretty, nothing to back it up".

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think the readers get that it's an advertisement. That's the point. Imagine if a store or restaurant did the same thing. It's one thing to put up the stuff that beer companies dole out -- signs, mirror, bottles, menus, etc. We accept that's part of doing business. But what if your favorite diner pasted a new sign over its name to rename itself Budweiser for the day, telling you they needed the cash. You'd understand that this was about advertising. But you might decide not to go back to a diner that was so identified with its sponsors that it was willing to give up its identity for the day. It's not really about principle. It's about sending a message and perception. I don't think USA Today would be less fair in its news reporting. But I now understand that money is so tight that it's willing to give way its brand for a few bucks.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Chicago Tribune also had a wrap like that on Wednesday. For Dodge, I think.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Wraps in any case are also waste of paper. I've seen it in restaurants in the a.m., now that I have lots of free time to have breakfast. People (those who still love a physical paper)come in, sit down and toss the wrap as the cloying annoyance it is to the reader, the consumer. To a one. I have yet to see anyone look at 'em. That's the real world, as opposed to self-serving figures in marketing.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I wanted to investigate this myself, so I went to a nearby convenience store. I asked the clerk, who had been there much of the day, what the public's reaction was to it. He said a bunch of people came in to buy a USAT, looked in the bin where it's kept, thought it was something else, and went to the register to ask "Where's today's USA Today?"
    Well I already suspected they were likely a few filaments short of a light bulb if they wanted to buy a USAT; that confirmed it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Speaking of "The Nation's Rag" (thanks, Acey), if Gannett sells USAT could that nullify Napoleon's contract-for-life?

    ReplyDelete
  18. 5:52 - I'm sure if a news story broke the day the wrap ran the fine journalists at USA TODAY would be all over it. And I think the reader would know the difference. If companies worried about bad news arriving the day their ads ran, they would never advertise again - anywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  19. There's nothing wrong with the wrap. Newspaper needs revenue to support it. Both readers and advertisers are important, but today's readers don't want to pay more than a cent, so ask the advertiser if you give them a good position. Some newspapers outside the US always have full front page ads and those newspapers survive with profits and serve the readers. Al Neuharth is a traditional newspaper man, he doesn't know we are living in a different world. Readers know it's an ad and I don't think it will affect journalistic integrity. That's an old school thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  20. There is a problem with "the wrap," as it's called. News headlines are what sell a paper, unless it's to that dying breed of reader for whom buying the paper is a reflex action.

    When you "wrap" up the paper on a newstand, the would-be reader has to peel it to see the front page. And if it's in one of those "honor boxes" on the street, that prospective reader has to pay for the priviledge of seeing the front page.

    Other than that, heck, the place is going down the shit shute anyway, so grab whatever bucks you can!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Having been away from there since the advent of dirt, & not knowing the answer, does USAT have an i-Pod/Kindle-type product in the pipeline?

    Or did it just cede the innovation high ground to NewsCorp's/Apple's "The Daily"?

    If there is something like that in the pipeline, it might be a good idea to kick it in the ass a little.

    If there isn't something like that in the pipeline, all the front-page wraps in the world won't keep the lights on for long.

    Gath

    ReplyDelete
  22. I see USA Today in its usual blue box on the wrap. People should be able to tell it's USA Today. I don't understand the confusion, unless there are a lot of similar-looking papers.
    People do not buy papers because the headline catches their eye. They buy a paper because they're used to buying that paper. They buy a paper because they don't have one delivered every day. If they want headlines, they subscribe to any one of hundreds of free email services on the Internet, and then buy the paper if they think there'll be more information in a print story.
    Personally, I subscribe to a newspaper delivered to my house. Most of the national stories, and many of the local stories, I have already seen on the Internet. I like the print version because it consolidates all those emails for me into something that I can turn into paper mache later.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Gath: Indeed, USA Today does offer a free iPad application, which is basically USAT in a digital format. It's now in version 2.0, and has been downloaded 1.4 million times, according to Corporate's webpage. So far, it's solely supported by advertising.

    Rupert Murdoch's The Daily is an entirely different beast. It's a national "newspaper" that was designed from the ground up as an iPad application; it's NOT a digital version of an existing newspapers. Also, readers must pay to use it: 99 cents a week or $39.99 a year. It carries advertising as well.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Jim - Then I think The Daily - & hence, NewsCorp - leads by the length of the stretch.

    Too bad.

    Gath

    ReplyDelete
  25. Agreed with 2/10/2011 2:50pm. Newspaper is changing. We can get any latest news free in Internet. I continue to buy newspaper because I like to read in that format. I also have an iPad and have free news from AP, BBC, CNN, USA Today. Newspaper needs innovative, drastic change to make more revenue, including front page ad or wrap, in order to survive. Be open minded. We are living in a different world comparing to, say, 10 years ago. I still think USA Today is more innovative than other newspapers. You might disagree.

    ReplyDelete
  26. USAT has so many bigger problems ... The cancer within -- the utter desperation, which is now the norm -- continues to spread, as it has for the last 3-4 years. Truly a terrible environment to work in (warning to any starry-eye J-grads), but admittedly probably not much worse than any other newspaper these days. I understand why many of us got into this business, but this business doesn't even resemble what it once did.

    As the recession eases, I am sure we'll see even more talent leaving the building. Many have left already -- some on their own, others weren't so fortunate. No one wants to hang around, listen to a constant stream of lies and have to suck up out of constant fear, and then get booted at some inopportune time anyway.

    This company will never change it stripes. Gannett is directly responsible for the deterioration of its flagship paper. It blatantly revealed how brutal it can be in recent years. USAT/Gannett hid behind the recession and the state of the industry, but it did many things it didn't have to or could have done more humanely. The result: A workforce that will never forget or forgive what took place here. We witnessed the greed at the top. We saw how loyalty was rewarded.

    Now, when I talk to young journalists, I caution them about working for the Gannetts of the world. There are better places to be, particularly for bright, young reporters, editors and creative people. There are places that even mid-career professionals can work that will be far healthier than USAT. Granted, the older you are the tougher it is to land those jobs. But my recommendation to everyone -- young and old -- is to keep hope alive. Extricate yourselves from this place if you can. You'll live longer. You will be appreciated, and not just in a phony corporate way.

    ReplyDelete

Jim says: "Proceed with caution; this is a free-for-all comment zone. I try to correct or clarify incorrect information. But I can't catch everything. Please keep your posts focused on Gannett and media-related subjects. Note that I occasionally review comments in advance, to reject inappropriate ones. And I ignore hostile posters, and recommend you do, too."

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.