These women also showed a strong understanding of the relationship between a magazine's ability to attract an audience and ad sales.As one woman,who was quoted earlier,said:
Like I said,it is(the magazines')responsibility to let readers know what is going in the world.If they upset their advertisers,then they should get new ones.If they lose their readers,that would be more detrimental to the magazine.
The participants in this study offer,what may be good advice to advertisers,to trust editors to know their audiences and provide the appropriate content for them.Gay publications like The Advocate,Out and Genre offer support that“controversial”content to one group may be perfectly acceptable and sought after by another.The difficulty in attracting national advertisers experienced by the lesbian targeted lifestyles title Deneuve may suggest that advertisers find some audiences more valuable than other(Fejes and Petrich,1993).But this is true regardless of the content of the magazine.In its earliest days,Ms.found it difficult to convince advertisers that women were a valuable audience(Steinem,1990).As the participants of this study explain,however,advertisers should let the editor define the editorial mission of the magazine while the advertisers worry about whether the audience delivered by that mission is appropriate for their products.
Future Research
The goal of this qualitative investigation was to uncover the“logical scaffolding”that women used in making sense of the two advertising practices.Now that the range and dynamics of responses to the practices have been determined,future research may attempt to assess how prevalently held the beliefs are.Previous research has shown that the practices discussed in this study are also common in trade publications.It would be particularly interesting to see if the findings presented above carry over to readers of farm and other trade magazines.
The study also suggests differential evaluations of complementary editorial based on publication and story content.Future research could test the effects of media type and story content on reader/viewer evaluations of the practice.Previous research indicates that audiences tend to find television less credible than the Internet,which is itself less credible than newspapers(Kiousis 2001).Women in our study tended to find fault with the practice of complementary editorial based largely on the credibility they otherwise ascribe to the publication.It,therefore,would be interesting to examine the relationship between perceived media credibility and valuation of the practice of offering complementary editorial.
Finally,it would be interesting to look more closely at those psychological and personality factors that might predict readers'reactions to practices like complementary editorial and attempted advertiser censorship of media content.Why are some women upset when others are not Why can some simply dismiss the practices as“business”while others feel cheated by both the magazines and the advertisers.
As long as advertisers provide the economic basis for media,the relationship between advertisers and editors will be potentially difficult to manage.While seemingly at odds in many cases,both parties have a common vested interest.That is,each depends on the magazine readers for survival.It is interesting that much of the research concerning the advertising/editorial relationship has not included the voice of the one group that is most important to each party-the readers.Perhaps this study and the additional studies suggested can bring the important voice of the readers to the table in order to inform the dialog about the increasingly difficult advertiser/editorial relationship in U.S.media.
Appendix-Basic Discussion Guide
·Rapport Building Questions
Tell me about yourself.
Tell me about the magazines you read.
How Many?
What Types?
Whatever comes to mind?
What do you like about them?
Any things you don't like about them,tell me about those things.
How do you decide which magazines to subscribe to?
·Complementary Editorial Questions
Sometimes to attract advertisers,magazines will give an advertiser something called“complementary editorial.”That means the magazine presents the advertiser's product or service within an article or feature in a good light in return for a marketer buying advertising in the magazine.Many times these articles appear near the marketer's ads.
Do you recall ever seeing something like this?If yes,can you tell me about what you saw?
How do you feel about this practice?
If you knew your favorite magazines did this,would it change how you feel about those magazines?
Would your feelings be different if a magazine like Time or Newsweek did this?How so or how not?
How about Better Homes and Gardens?How so or how not?
How about Family Circle?How so or how not?
How about Conde Nast Traveler?How so or how not?
How about Cosmo?
How about Mutual Funds or Kipplinger's?
Can you think of any other magazines where it would matter to you?
Would the topic of the material affect your feelings toward the practice?Please explain.
Does knowing about this practice change how you feel about advertisers who may receive complementary editorial?
Does the type of advertiser matter to you or are your feelings the same regardless of advertiser?Can you explain?
Is it OK for a magazine to offer a marketer complementary editorial?How so or how not?
Is it OK for an advertiser to request it?How so or how not?
Would you ever drop your subion or not read a magazine that you knew offered complementary editorial?Why or why not?
·Advertiser Imposed Censorship Questions
Sometimes as well advertisers threaten to pull ads from a magazine because of certain content they find objectionable.Other times,magazines don't print stories because they feel the stories might upset their advertisers?
How do you feel about these issues?
Do you think it's fair for advertisers to threaten to pull their ads in order to influence what is published in the magazine?Why or why not?
