If you read Ad Age regularly, you know that much of the magazine’s editorial output is created by reader-practitioners, a fact that can lead to uneven coverage. Here’s an example.
In an article on the need to maintain senior-level generalists instead of mid-level specialists, Bob Rose, VP-director of account services and media operations at Seiter & Miller Advertising, argues that “media people” are biased against print.
I think the shock the print medium is experiencing financially is more the result of online-centric advertising people steering spending away from newspapers and magazines than it is the true decline in that medium’s efficacy. (The decline in ad spending in print is a much worse challenge than maintaining audience levels for the medium.) Today’s media people are at the core of this de-valuation of print because it is a bias of their training to think digitally; it is not a reflection of an objective evaluation of the print medium’s value.
Perhaps I’m confused, but I don’t understand how someone in media can be against any medium that brings in revenue.
I think Rose is right.
Media people start with a bagful of money. The agency earns about the same regardless of where they spend it (this is usually but not always true. Agencies often earn higher commissions for online advertising because of the time required to keep monitoring and optimizing.)
One would think media people would be neutral and would put their clients’ money where it will do the most good. However, everyone has preconceived notions. Media people tend to be young and tend to prefer online activities to reading. Consequently they will be more likely to put money into online. Also, online is hipper. Print media are “old-fashioned.” Media people like to be hip.