Forums | MacLife

frank519 wrote:

well, i too am kinda upset about both the sony double-truck ad and the 30 pages of advertorial about mobile games and no mention of the iphone. it's even paid for by AT&T, for pete's sake! if i want content that mentions PC hardware and software, i can read any one of a jillion other mags. i subscribe to this magazine because i want content that educates me about my Mac.

So why don't you stop whining about the ads and read the content of the magazine. Or do you usually buy a magazine for the ads???

frank519 wrote:

being a designer who works on publications, i understand that maclife needs to pay the bills. while lots of their funding must come from ad sales, i think a significant portion of their revenue also must come from long-term repeat subscribers like myself. i've been a continuous subscriber since the early days of macaddict, and ever since the maclife change came around, i've actually been considering of letting my subscription lapse. i want DIY and HOWTO content, thorough reviews, and a spunky attitude like macaddict used to have, but the new incarnation feels more like people magazine to me. 

No, not only does your subscription money not contribute a significant portion to their revenue, it is probably only a very small portion if any. However, your subscription does give them the leverage to sell more ads for more money which IS where the bulk of their funding comes from.

Frank

the point, frankly, is that they are running ads in a "mac" magazine that have nothing to do with a "mac."

now obviously it's not a big deal to you and you have voiced that opinion several times.

some of us, however, would prefer that our "mac" magazine run ads that are "mac" centric. 

it's not that the ads are just for thing that we aren't interested in or aren't going to buy it's that they shouldn't be in the magazine full stop.

no, they aren't supporting drunk driving, no one ever said they were. you continue to miss the point, even though it has been spelled out for you several time. I image you will continue to not see this as a big deal, which is fine. for me though I prefer my "mac" publications to have "mac" content. and that goes for their ads too.

Preach on brother, preach on!

Donkey Butter wrote:

the point, frankly, is that they are running ads in a "mac" magazine that have nothing to do with a "mac."

now obviously it's not a big deal to you and you have voiced that opinion several times.

some of us, however, would prefer that our "mac" magazine run ads that are "mac" centric. 

it's not that the ads are just for thing that we aren't interested in or aren't going to buy it's that they shouldn't be in the magazine full stop.

no, they aren't supporting drunk driving, no one ever said they were. you continue to miss the point, even though it has been spelled out for you several time. I image you will continue to not see this as a big deal, which is fine. for me though I prefer my "mac" publications to have "mac" content. and that goes for their ads too.

I'm sorry but that's not how ads work. The way they work is that the magazine ad salespeople tell the potential ad buyers the breakdown of readers by income level, geographic location, sex, age, etc. Any information that they have they provide to potential ad buyers. If they want to target that audience with ads for their product, they buy. So, why a Sony ad in a Mac magazine? I'm sure that many people that read Mac|Life use both a Mac and a PC. Perhaps they use the PC at work or for some other purpose. So Sony obviously sees some potential buyers or they wouldn't waste their money buying ads for the magazine.

No, I see what you are saying clear as a bell. I just think it is a ridiculous and petty demand on your part. You aren't buying the magazine for the ads. The ads are however allowing you to subscribe to the magazine at such a low price. If you want to pay $72 (cover price) for the magazine then you can tell them not to put those ads in it. However, if you enjoy paying the $20 (ad-subsidized subscription price) then I don't think you do have a say, unless the ads are morally repugnant.

Frank

wow thanks for letting us know for the, what, fifth time now that magazine make money by selling ads and not from subscription prices.

by you going on about this cover price verses subscription price proves that you still aren't getting it.

bottom line is Mac|Life chose to run a 2 page sony vaio ad as well as a 30 page at&t ad. I feel that it was an inappropriate decision, but as you have said it is just an ad.

I share Orion's disgusts with "Special Advertising Sections."

Square. In. The. Balls.

Running ads for competing products doesn't bother me, though. Hell, cable channels run ads for each other all the time. Network affiliates run ads for other networks' shows, and radio stations run ads for each other as well. Ultimately, it all evens out.

frank519 wrote:

actually, frankly, i DO read the ads. i'm a designer. i'm paid to design publications and ads for my clients, and as such, it's important for me to keep up with what's going on in the advertising world. so, i pay attention to ads, yes. also, i'm a mac-using consumer, and if i want to know what's out there for me to buy to complement my (dare i say it -- MAC LIFE), i would look in a magazine like this for mac-related products.

and you are right about my subscription adding to their leverage for wooing advertisers, so you agree with my point there: regular subscribers matter, monetarily. i think if they want to run ads for operating systems, software, and hardware that isn't part of the general mac-based lifestyle, then they should be honest and change the name of the mag to "computer life" or something more in line with their values.

1) If you are looking at the ads as a designer then it shouldn't matter what the ads are for. You are really reaching there.
2) I guess I need to say this again since you don't seem to get it: Ads are NOT CONTENT. The magazine editorial content dictates the title of the magazine, not the ads. By your logic all the magazines that contain ads for cigarettes (and there are plenty) should all change their name to Smoker's Monthly or something like that. Get a grip.

Frank

i know you don't understand my POV, but that's the way i see this. it's not "reaching", it's a fact. i only said that i in fact read the ads in response to your assertion that nobody reads magazines for the ads, only for the content. i happen to also look at the ads in ALL the magazines i subscribe to. for a tightly-targeted magazine like this one, i expect the ads to all be mac-related ads. when i read wired, i have different expectations, just like i do for interior design magazines, news magazines, etc., and in this particular case, i find windows machine advertising out of place, misguided, and honestly kind of insulting to those of us who have used macs and stood by apple through thick and thin. if i had wanted a windows PC, i think i would have bought one by now, you know?

also, for what it's worth, i don't see any hypocrisy in this stance in regards to apple running ads in magazines devoted to windows computers, either. there is definitely a strong movement of people moving away from windows to other OS platforms, and people switching to macs are a part of that, so it makes sense that apple would take advantage of that. in 20+ years of using a mac, i can't say i've ever heard of people going the other direction.

i know that neither of us will ever convince the other, so can we please just agree to disagree?

Random User wrote:

Notice that the magazine staff haven't chimed in on these comments.

We rarely post anywhere on the forums. Why should we start now?

.






It's pretty simple.  With a medium amount of ads, I'll actually take some time to look at the products in addition to the content of the mag.

This recent Mac|Life had more than 84 pages worth of advertisements.  This is 60% of the space of the entire magazine.  Compare this to the 26% of television time that ads involve, or the approximate 15% I see on the internet as a whole.

When there is this much advertisements, and for products unrelated to my interests, I tend to spend my time counting the ads, being amazed, and not renewing my subscription.





.

Pablo Mac wrote:

Gunnyman wrote:

http://myskitch.com/gunnyman/photo_28-2 … 074104.jpg

Here is another visual on that fine Sony ad.

Can you say someone has too much free time? 

frankly wrote:

Can you say someone has too much free time? 

The ironic thing is, while that silly video was uploading, I got a call with a sweet job offer. So, as of that moment, no, I don't have too much free time!

Full disclosure: I freelance for Future inc., but not Mac|Life.

If you read more than one of Future's pubs you'll see that 30-page ad in I *think* all of them ran this ad (I've seen the same complaint in PC Gamer's forums). That tells me AT&T negotiated a deal to run the ad in all, some, or most of Future's mags this month.

Do I like the ad? No. Do I realize the budgets for print magazines sucks these days and they take any and all advertising dollars they can get so they can keep putting the magazine out? Yes.

Do you know what you can do to make sure the ads go away? Probably not:

1- Contact Stacey Levy the publisher (her phone number is on the masthead on page 8). Politely tell her your issue and that if a large ad runs again you will be boycotting the magazine.

2- If you choose to boycott this is what you must do: Cancel your subscription and let her know. Do not ever look at another copy of MacLife again. Part of how advertising prices are determined is through what's called pass-through, where they estimate how many people borrow a friend's copy, read it at the newsstand and not buy it, or read it at a docs office. If you are to truly remove yourself from the equation "cheating" and looking at the mag in the newsstand doesn't count. You also need stop coming to the website and generating ad revenue.

Directing your anger at the ads towards the staff is the wrong direction. While they can carry a message it carries more weight coming from you. Contact anyone under "Business" on the masthead. If you want to use e-mail, I believe Future uses firstintiallastname@futurenetworksus.com