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.
