"Political magazines should look like Mirabella, they should look like Elle."
-- John F. Kennedy, Jr., George

Advertising the Uncommercial

Adbusters was such a great idea: a magazine devoted to advertising that makes fun of advertising. Produced by Canada's non-profit Media Foundation, it dealt earnest, hardhitting media criticism while it trashed Absolut, Calvin Klein and just about everything on TV.

Adbusters is still around. Over the past few years, it has transformed from a humble, sorta shoddy newsprint zine into a full color glossy heavy on the visuals and catchy slogans. While still devoted to ad parodies and TV bashing, it's adopted the strategies of its opponents, dumbing everything down to the lowest common (eyecatching!) denominator. It's become an advertisement for anti-advertising. And it looks like a real magazine.

Maybe this wouldn't be so bad if Adbusters was upfront about its marketing strategies; if it discussed what was necessary to get into malls, etc. It's pretty ridiculous for a magazine devoted to exposing advertising/marketing practices to hide its own. But in the new issue there's a paragraph about Zima's Stan Ridgway ad, an article by Barry Shell about the lack of advertising on the web (wonder which web he's been on) and scarcely a mention of the magazine's new exclusive distribution deal with Hearst. Alternative Press Review printed a letter by independent distributor Ken Oatman (great name) criticizing Adbusters for turning its back on independent retailers. Adbusters never printed the letter; when APR called to get their side of the story, an editor said she threw it away because it "sounded like sour grapes."

Whether the Hearst deal is financially sound for Adbusters or -- as Oatman suggests -- not, it makes you wonder what a non-profit magazine would be doing with "American's Largest Publisher of Monthly Magazines" anyway. What would the home of Cosmo, Esquire, Good Housekeeping, et al, get out of distributing a magazine with no (paid) ads?

Hearst's trade ads tell all: "our magazines are, in all respects, branded consumer products." Like Diet Coke or the Beatles, Hearst magazines have strong brand identities. And Adbusters makes the perfect brand -- a fun, do-good, hip image with a unique selling proposition. It's the only one of its kind, basically, and its got more brand extensions than Melrose. Hey, just because it's a non-profit doesn't mean that Hearst can't make money off it.

Sorta like PBS. In the wake of the Disney/ABC merger, a Young and Rubicam (huge advertising firm) survey of 8,500 brands worldwide concluded that the most eligible brand for acquisition is the Public Broadcasting Service. Surprise, the home of "educational" programming like Barney and Nova is one big non-commercial commercial. Says PBS spokesperson Stu Kantor, "In terms of differentiation and personal relevance, it is the No. 2 (behind Disney) media brand among the total population."

Even though PBS doesn't draw the large numbers of other brands/TV stations... the viewers that do watch are more loyal. That is, they're more likely to buy something based on what they see on PBS (same thing with non-commercial radio: fewer listeners, but more inclined to act based on what they hear). So there's actually a commercial advantage to remaining non-commercial.

And so even as a non-profit, Adbusters can be profitable. It's just that the magazine itself can't show a profit. Their financial concerns are like any other company; they need money. While I can't blame `em for that, it's troubling to think that the USA Today/MTV-ization of the magazine is inevitable to expand their audience. And if they think that's true they should say so. Adbusters would be so much more worthwhile if they confronted the issue instead of just swallowing it.

On this count, they could learn a thing or two from George. All the critics dumping on JFK Jr.'s new political mag for focusing on "personalities" miss the point; news media already cover politicians as celebrities. At least George is open about it. If nothing else, the magazine raises the point (subtly, very subtly) that politicians are eerily interchangeable with supermodels and Mousketeers. Now there's an idea: Newt Gingrich... no wait... Cubby for president. (I'd vote for Izaac Mizrahi any day.)

by Carrie McLaren

SOME RELATED LINKS

Culture Jamming (tm): Brought to You by AdBusters - An article I wrote a couple of years ago (in Stay Free!)focussing on how Adbusters' appropriation of the phrase "culture jamming" typifies their inclination to turn every they preach into a slogan. Now there's even a culture jamming section on Yahoo.

Carter Got Your Tongue? Why Liberals Can't Win an Argument on TV - As much as I wanna blame AdBusters for their lowest-common-denominator approach, David Shenk makes a great argument in the other direction... well, actually this is largely unrelated, but he does bring up some good points about liberals and hair.

Advertising Age - The industry's primary trade magazine. The web site includes a fairly up-to-date archive of articles and features, as well as daily news briefs and whatnot. Essential stuff, I'd usually rather read this than second-hand (lefty) reports, and the web site is especially handy considering Ad Age's stiff subscription rates.