PressEthic

Byron Calame, the NY Times' ombudsman, sees some worrying signs indicating the "wall between church and state" (i.e. between ads and content) is steadily breaking down in the face of circulation declines. He notes the recent widespread adoption of "the watermark" ad unit, which is a replication of a company's logo (like Prudential's rock) printed faintly in the background of content like stock quotes or sports box scores.

Is there anything wrong with such a unit? The Times' advertising manager predictably says "of course not!":

"Our new branded watermark unit reflects The Times's ongoing commitment to deliver high impact advertising opportunities and value to our customers," Jyll F. Holzman, the senior vice president of advertising

OK, I know newspapers across the country are suffering, with even the "Paper of Record" struggling of late. So I can understand the advertising department feeling it needs to deliver a "high impact advertising opportunity" to marketers. But don't tell me that such advertising provides ANY "value to [your] customers." The problem with such ads is not that they necessarily blur content and advertising because I think consumers are savvier than they've ever been about such practices. After all, we're inundated with thousands upon thousands of ads every day; it's a survival practice to separate the good (content) from the bad (ads). The problem is more that they're ineffective -- after getting used to the logo, consumers will view the "watermark" as yet another ploy by marketers and will subconsciously avoid the ads.

But will they go away? Absolutely not; if one thing's certain, it's that advertisers will brand anything and everything they possibly can within (and outside of) the law, searching for the "magic bullet" that will turn their product into the season's must-have item. And how have consumers responded? They've flocked to Tivo, pop-up blockers, iPods, commercial-free cable like HBO, all to avoid the influx of advertising. It makes me wonder: When will marketers recognize that more advertising doesn't necessarily lead to a better response?