This is the third blog post you will respond to for the semester for JRNL 314 – PR Writing. Remember, discussions begin on
Tuesday and end on Friday.
Answer the following:
The editor of Glamour magazine once said, “All things being equal, if we are looking at two items that are equally available nationally, if one of them is an advertiser we’d use it.” Would you agree? Why or why not? What other criteria might be used?
Gina Luttrell 
Initially when I read this quote, I was slightly confused. I wasn’t really receptive as to the point of the quote, or the meaning. I hope my response lines up with what you’re looking for. I think I partially agree with this quote, both things being available nationally make shrink them into a category all their own, simply because they are available nationally…when most things aren’t. If we are talking product wise, there are a lot of things that may just be available to the public locally, so for something to be available nationally separates them. I think we live in a world where advertising is second nature. So, in turn I think its second nature for us to advertise, and to hop on any opportunity to advertise a product or service if it is benefiting us in some way. Whether is rocking a piece of clothing, posting on Instagram how amazing your chipotle was…we advertise, even when we don’t think we are, or aren’t receiving some sort of benefit from it. I think other criteria that may be used would be, how innovative it is to peoples everyday life, I am not going to advertise the newest computer modem, when there are tons of smaller and smaller tablets that switch interfaces and are removable, without the modem having some special effects. We live in a world of being on the go, and the things that we choose to advertise fit our lives and are being built around that innovation.
I think we were both in the same boat when we started reading the quote because I too was confused. I see what you are saying about items being available nationally. But, I have to say there are probably a lot more items available nationally then we might think. Speaking from someone that has not been out of the country other than Canada a handful of times I am no expert to say what products are national. I agree that we do advertise often especially on our clothing as you mentioned. People post on social media all the time by checking in a certain restaurants or saying how good their Chipotle was therefore advertising the restaurant for them and getting no benefit as you said. We are a society of “on the go” and things we choose to advertise for even though we do in sort of subconsciously. We do it because we like something and it does fit our lives.
I agree to your post but I am a little confused on your comments on things being available nationally. I may be reading this wrong, but you think there is only a small amount of products today that are available nationally. But I think there are actually a lot of opportunities out there today for companies to make their product available nationally. Online shopping today has made companies available to nearly anyone. However I do agree with you on how second nature advertising is today. For example, I just tweeted about how delicious my pumpkin spice latte is. This in itself is advertising for the company, because I am persuaded people that their products are good. Little things such as people’s post on social media, or the different advertising around can definitely help persuade a person’s decision.
I have to disagree with you. I think that in our world today almost everything is available nationally. I mean look at all the different languages that products are offered in know. Food, hair products, clothing, cars are all examples of things that are available nationally. I think that was important to the quote because it shows how much of an impact advertising has. Even if something is just as available as something else, if is has more media coverage its going to be the top pick. Glamour wants to be number one so naturally they are going to pick products that are popular amongst their readers.
ThecompanyofB, I really like how you stated that you’d never feature something that isn’t totally innovative in someone’s everyday life. I defiantly agree with you on how our lives are framed around what can make our lives easier and more comfortable. Why would Glamour Magazine want to waste their time on featuring something that isn’t that useful and when people read the description about it, they’re asking themselves, “What the heck would I do with that?” That won’t sell. It’s kind of like those little brochures that are in the back of the seat when you sit down in an airplane. They have the most random stuff (although, it’s fun to look at) that I could never see anyone buying. I think that publishers have to look at the growth of the product and the company to decide whether they’d like to put it in their publication. Otherwise, neither the product or the outlet that’s featuring the product will be making money. Interesting perspective!
I must say after reading the quote I am a bit confused at what the editor is getting at. Is it that he works for a large magazine that is half advertisements half articles and that magazine lives on because of those advertisements? Or I was also thinking could it be, that if the two items were equal but one was put out by advertising and the other one was not would we still know about the other equal item? So, in a sense I guess I partially agree with the quote if that is what it means. All we see are things being advertised, while we drive, as we post on Facebook and as we read magazine or newspapers. We are constantly being shown products by advertisers. This got me wondering if we really trust advertisers, in a way I think we do because we often see something advertised and if we like it we buy it. In the quote the editor also uses the term “we” which to me means the Glamour magazine. With that thought in mind I would agree with the quote because of course a magazine is going to “use it” as the editor put it. Why would they even bother looking at the other item if it has nothing to do with an advertiser? I think this quote can be taken many different ways because the editor is somewhat vague. I would like to know if there was more said before or after this quote to see if there was more to it or not.
Lisa, I agree, it would be helpful to know if there was something written before or after or what context this was written in. I think we can all agree on the overall message but what you said about it being in terms of a magazine I think you’re on to something. It makes sense that an editor of a magazine would see many advertisements in every issue and know which products are selling better out of these magazines than ones that are not or that have been previously advertised. If we think of the quote in the context of the magazine world an editor may say something like this because it seems as though our favorite magazines are becoming more and more full of advertisements and less of actual reading or viewing material.
I agree with you about how vague this quote is. I really wonder if a little context would make this statement make a little more sense. I also think it’s important to point out that advertisement is everywhere. As you said, we see advertisements in all aspects of our lives, so really, both items could be advertisers, whether it’s meant to be that way or not. But I also get that the actual ‘advertiser’ is probably paying the magazine, and is more likely to give Glamour a better return on investment. However, I think if you saturate a magazine with too many advertisements, the magazine loses a lot of the audience, and if that happens, it ultimately doesn’t matter if it’s an advertiser or not.
This quote did seem a bit confusing to me and took me a few times to read it to fully comprehend. But I do agree because I think it is natural for a consumer to go for the product that is advertised more. A lot of decisions, conscious or not, can be based off name recognition. If you haven’t ever tried of a product, but it’s available, chances are you may pick it if you’ve heard of it before. Advertising today is done in SO many different ways, a lot of different way that some people don’t even realize that they are exposed to it. The simplest advertising, such as billboards, ads on the web, and commercials, expose people to more things than they realize. Heck, we can’t even listen to Pandora without hearing some sort of advertisement. Obviously, other factors can affect this type decision, not just the name recognition. Price is a big one. Chances are if one product is drastically more expensive than the other, the consumer will go the cheaper one. Another thing that can impact decisions, which I personally have a tendency to do a lot, is if one product looks visually more attractive than the other, naturally I will pick it. For example, if it came down to two types of chap sticks, and I had never heard of either company, I will probably decide the one with prettier packaging. But, I still strongly believe that the product that is advertised more will almost always get picked. The power of advertising today is extremely strong.
I completely agree with you Abbey! I think that we are exposed to advertisements in ways that we sometimes may not even be cognitively aware of. Like you mentioned, Pandora is a perfect example… obviously when I’m listening to Pandora and I hear the occasional advertisement I hear it but I don’t pay too much attention to it because it’s such a normal occurrence on the radio station that I don’t even react to it or complain about it. However there have been times when I’ve heard about a new product or service and wonder where I had heard about it originally, and it will from places like a Pandora, where I “heard” it but I didn’t think it stuck with me until that specific product (being advertised) got brought up!
Abbey I was in the same boat! I was pretty confused when I initially read it, I had to really think about before I made my comment. But I totally agree with you! Whether we like it or not advertising is everywhere and we are constantly consuming it. Ill even find myself being at the store and I will pick something I have never gotten before but I have heard the name, so I trust it. We’re just a bunch of sponges getting advertisements thrown at us left and right.
Your comment about price is a good one however I think a lot of times people will go for the brand name versus the cheaper one. We think that the more expensive product will be more reliable so we spend more money. When in reality the cheaper one was probably just as good.
I like a lot of the points you made. I think we are bombarded with advertisements so much that eventually we will became biased towards a product just because it is familiar to us.
A good example of this is how we choose our politicians. Just because a candidate is advertised on TV during every commercial break when it’s an election year, we feel like they must be legit. Other candidates from other parties are often overlooked not because of credentials or lack of political insight, but because they do not have the funds to be advertised equally. People like familiar things, and if we see or hear things enough we will grow to trust them. However, I think times have changed a lot with the internet, and advertising has lost a lot of credibility.
Lauren makes a very good point. It is so often that we are exposed to advertisements in ways that we are not aware of. In this digital age there is so much that we are exposed to in so many different mediums at so many different kinds that our conscious mind can’t keep up.
Not only are we exposed to communication different ways but it is absorbed into our mind in new ways as well. In turn, we end up spitting back advertisements without even realizing it.
For example, have you ever quoted a movie line that everyone laughs at and someone out of the laughter asks, “What’s that from?” …Well, you just gave an advertisement. You didn’t mean to, but you did.
Look at branding. Branding is such a crucial part of advertising. All you need to do is purchase something that is branded by the company and you are now walking billboard for that company whether you want to be or not.
Abbey, great point! Although, don’t some publishers make money on featuring other organization’s products or services? So it may be smarter to choose the more expensive product or service, if there’s not a dramatic difference from the cheaper one. I have to be honest, I’ve never really dove this deep into how publishers choose what they mention in their work. Now that this topic has come up, I see the importance of doing some research on the different organizations that offer what you’re looking to publish. It can be SO beneficial to look at mostly their free advertising on a variety of social media outlets to see how they’re perceived and how they’re connecting with their audiences. It’s mandatory that publishing companies, like Glamour Magazine, are up to date on not only what’s hot at the moment, but what’s the NEXT hottest thing in the market. It’d be embarrassing for them to write a feature story on a product that never took off with consumers. Nice job Abbey!
I would like to say that whichever product is of better quality or is something that is more beneficial to a customer should be the one that Glamour magazine (or a company in general) should choose, but I don’t think that’s very realistic. Unfortunately I think too often it simply boils down to numbers; what will make them the most money? What promotes their cause the best? Not necessarily what is best for the customer. Business is business and if Glamour magazine needs to sell the product that is an advertiser compared to the one that isn’t, I think it’s something that they just have to do. I wish it wasn’t the truth. I wish editiors would choose the product that BEST fits their customers needs, compared to the product that best fits their advertisers.
However, I think one of the best aspects about advertising is that often times (we) the clients are the ones doing the most proactive and successful advertising FOR that specific company and not even know we’re doing it! For example if I go to Chipotle and take a picture of me eating a delicious burrito and post the picture on my Facebook and Twitter about how amazing the burrito is while making it clear with a comment or hashtag that it’s from Chipotle… that’s advertising! I’m influencing my friends and followers that this is excellent and if you’re hungry and wanna be happy like I am, come on down to Chipotle and get a burrito! Boom! Free advertising and the best kind… word of mouth and influencing your peers.
Choosing an advertisers product over one that isn’t partnered with your company just makes business sense to me, it’s way your company gets money and can spread it’s influence through other companies.
I understand what you’re getting at when you say that business is business when it comes to advertising. I didn’t look at the quote quite like this, but it makes sense. Companies will choose what is best for their company. It does boil down what is the best money, not about what’s best for consumers.
I like your example of Chipotle. Consumers can be the greatest advertisers sometimes. It’s smart for a company to establish a hashtag for consumers to use on Twitter and Instagram. This is great advertising.
Glamour isn’t a hard hitting print source. With that being said, I could understand why they would need to seek out advertisers over other sources. They make money off of ads and they want those ads and those articles and how-to’s seen everywhere.
I think that the statement might have been unnecessary because in the print field, we depend on ever facet. So I cannot agree with the statement, but I can appreciate the honesty that went with it.
Newspapers depend on ads just as magazines do, but I do think that there are more important things…
I’m not sure of the context the statement was said in, I feel like I cannot give a criteria without it.
I think you made some really valid points. I think Glamour can use advertising a bit different than most publications, and that may have impacted the editor’s opinion a tad. Glamour probably makes a lot of money off advertisements as well, and I like that you pointed out that fact. The only thing keeping print publications afloat is the value of print ads, and once internet ads become more profitable there will be a drastic change in how we receive our information. I think if we knew when this quote was given, we could add a bit more insight. I think advertising has taken a hit with social media giving everyone the ability to put anything on blast, and maybe if this is an old quote her mind has changed a bit. You came up with some thought provoking ideas though, good job.
Along with my classmates this quote was a little confusing to me. I didn’t understand them referring to advertising as an object. So is it that they are looking at two different options for what to put in the magazine and they are both equal but one is an advertisement? Or was it that an ad company wanted to advertise them? Or is it that they are looking at two products that are equal and but one gets more advertising than the other. I am going to go with the latter.
In that case I would totally have to agree. Humans are all about status, and if there is a product that is everywhere versus an equally great product that doesn’t get as much attention, they are going to go for the more popular one. It’s the whole “keeping up with the Joneses” mentality, everyone wants to be the best.
So I feel that what Glamour is saying is that which ever product is more popular that is the one they are going to choose. I know we all like to think that everyone gets a fair chances in life but that is just not the reality. The more popular something is, the bigger the name, the more people are going to want to buy it. However on the flip side, if Glamour chose the less advertised product it would eventually become completely equal with the more popular one in every aspect.
-Ken
This quote, in my opinion, is saying advertising is a great way to get public appeal. I am not necessarily on board with the statement, because this society is being overburdened with advertisements and advertisers. Everywhere you look there are slogans or logos, and they just don’t have a very big impact on most of the general public.
There are certain instances where the same old tactics will always work like a charm.
Celebrity endorsements, for example, will probably always bring in some positive publicity.
If Taylor Swift only plays with a particular brand of guitar, chances are that company will not hate her for it.
If LeBron James wears a brand of sneakers during a game and is featured in shoe commercials, chances are kids will flock to the stores to snag a pair.
However, having a high profile celebrity endorse everyone’s products is just not realistic, and they are annoying anyways.
There are other disadvantages to advertising as well. The book lists the two biggest reasons as being expensive and lacking credibility.
The lack of credibility is the biggest concern about advertising. Any company can pay money to have someone say they are the best, and it is just not believable in most situations. Having an outside source sing your praises will always attract the most attention, and in the day and age of social media, people are going to tell the truth about a company or product anyways.
Relating to the public and receiving feedback is just not possible with advertising.
John Wanamaker, founder of a department store chain, said, “Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted. The trouble is, I don’t know which half.”
If a social media campaign is properly run by a seasoned PR practitioner, there should be a two-way dialogue that can offer some answers to what works and what does not. Feedback would result in less money wasted on ineffective tactics. That aspect is not possible with advertising, and it is another reason why different avenues of exposure may be better.
Advertising can be efficient and produce results. The text book lists many of its advantages, as well. It is by no means completely useless, and can be used for just causes, public service and advocacy for different issues.
But, times have changed, and I don’t think anyone is going to buy a product just because Glamour told them to. If they see something they like, they will probably go see if it’s trending on Twitter.
I think we can all agree that advertising is a great way to get public appeal. I enjoy that because of this, you should to disagree with the statement.
I like that you chose to emphasize the flooding of the market with advertising, or in your words “overburdening”. you took the approach of rather than talking about the obvious, focusing on the overlooked. What is often overlooked is the disadvantage to advertising.
As a journalism major, I appreciate that you also brought in the element of credibility. I think we all understand the importance, especially as young adults looking to make it in the real world, of credibility. I think we all can’t think of a time that we saw an advertisement that we did not find credible.
I appreciate and admire your closing hope to your post that times have changed. I wish that they have, however I’m not convinced. I think times have not changed as much as we would all like to say that they have. We have new technologies we have new inventions; we have so many new things but for some reason we are still stuck in our own ways. Until always change our methods really don’t have to.
I agree with what you said, Ken! I definitely believe credibility is lost when you pay someone to say your product is great because there is no objectivity since that may not even be the true thoughts about the product that are being spoken. It goes back to how we must earn media in the field of public relations. It actually means something when you aren’t just paying for your message to be out there for the world to see because it means your message has to have true value and some sort of appeal. In addition, I know exactly what you mean about being overburdened by advertisements. With so many messages being thrown out every day, it is hard to focus on why any product is worth buying because it is way too hard to listen in such a cluttered world. In addition, I agree that the magazine would not be the primary way to convince consumers to buy the product because some people would prefer to hear the product is great from people who they know really well, such as a sibling or friend.
As it relates to the quote that we are discussing, I have a little bit of confusion in regards to one of them being, “an advertiser”. What do they mean by that? Do they mean as in a person, or is in a product that will subsequently result in advertisement?
The second thing that I would like to point out is this, “all things being equal,” comment. First of all, nothing is equal. There is no such thing as true equality. It’s a lot like trying to find a perfect circle, it just doesn’t exist. We can level the playing field as much as we want but nothing is ever truly equal to another.
With all of that above in mind, I would like to say that I agree with the quote. If all things were equal and we really were looking at two items that are the same, if one of them is an advertiser I would definitely use it.
Advertisement is one of the most powerful tools that we learned to use as a species when it comes to communication. Advertising gives a visual, and usually audible cue which will invoke an emotive response from the viewer. One of the most powerful tools that anyone whether it be in marketing, PR, journalism, communications, or any other form of communication channel can use is advertised to trigger an emotional response.
Human beings are controlled by our emotions. Being able to understand how we are controlled by these emotions and better yet, how we are persuaded by them, enables us to steer a person or a group of people in the direction that we would like them to go.
Lee I can just picture you arguing this in class! I agree with you on this one. I hadn’t thought of this quote hypothetically. When you talked about two products of equal value side by side and one is advertised and the other isn’t I completely agree. In most cases it does seem that the advertised product is the one that will succeed. I also completely agree with your thoughts on advertisers playing on people’s emotions. This is completely accurate. People want to hear certain things and advertisers understand that. Certain Subaru and commercials come to mind, tugging at consumer heartstrings. Well played Subaru, well played.
I understand where you are coming from with equality statement, but I think that some products don’t really make much of a difference to consumers. For example, I think we can all agree people will say the iPhone is superior to the Android or the Android is superior to the iPhone, but I don’t think too many people will argue one brand of sugar is better than another because the taste will be most likely the same. However, I do think there are certain brands that are more well-known and have become almost what we refer to when asking for a product, such as asking for a Kleenex rather than a tissue, and so I definitely think advertising can have a big influence on our lives because people tend to like to buy things they have heard of before compared to brands that are very unfamiliar.
After reading this quote, about a hundred times over, I think I’ve come to my conclusion. As some of my classmates have said I agree I think that the editor of Glamour magazine was saying that if something is advertised then it will be more successful. In other words our nation and other nations rely heavily on advertising to promote products. We see advertising everywhere we go whether it’s at home or on the road, so if this is the point the Glamour editor was trying to make then yes they were absolutely correct. That being said, however, there is a flaw to that statement. If what they were saying was for a person to take two items and compare them then this statement is not always true. Take Krispy Kreme donuts for example. Krispy Kreme does absolutely no advertising and have thrived off of word-of-mouth advertising. Now take Krispy Kreme and compare it side by side with a company like Dunkin’ Donuts. Dunkin’ Donuts does massive amounts of advertising and yet Krispy Kreme takes the cake when it comes to selling donuts. According to an article I read from Forbes Krispy Kreme sells more donuts but Dunkin’ Donuts sells more coffee. Alright, I’m straying from the point. The point is, not all products require advertising to achieve ultimate success so I agree that advertising does help most products sell better but not all.
I agree with you on the editor of Glamour magazine was trying to say that if something is advertised then it will be more successful. Also I think that we do rely heavily on advertisements for different products like you mentioned, here in the United States and other nations. It is really what we know I mean what other ways we find out about things. I think we learn a lot from advertisements we definitely learn about new products but I guess we could also learn about them from other people as well. I liked the comparison you did with Dukin’ Donuts and Krispy Kreme. You are right Krispy Kreme doesn’t do any advertisements but you do see them out there and many people still enjoy them. I didn’t really think of what you mentioned about not all products require advertising to achieve ultimate success. It’s true if you think about it.
Well, I’m glad that I’m not the only one that doesn’t fully understand what the editor is saying, so I’ll just respond with my best answer. I think that the Glamour Magazine editor is sort of saying, “If we want to feature a product or service in our magazine, than we want to make sure that organization of that product or service is marketing and reaching out to their audiences the best of their ability. Just because we find something that we like, doesn’t mean we are going to feature it.” I hope I worded that OK. I sort of get the angle that the editor is coming from. They want to mention an organization that’s loyal to their customers and find new tactics (that work) to reach them. This quote pretty much sums up that Glamour Magazine puts time and thought into what they write about and what they put in their magazine. I defiantly agree with what they’re saying because if they are putting work into their magazine, they want to associate themselves with organizations that share the same passion. It’s sort of like when you’re partnered up with someone for a group project and one person tends to do more work than the other, but in the end you both get the same grade; it’s not fair. Another criteria that may be used for deciding on whether to feature a product or service is to look at the growth of that company. If it has increased, than it should be featured. If it has stayed steady or decreased, than that’s a sign not to publish their name in your magazine.
Your answer definitely makes sense. And it makes sense that the magazine would put a lot of thought into what they are putting in their magazine. They obviously want to get as much out of the product feature as they can, and if they go with an advertiser, they are more likely to get the return on investment that they’re looking for. However, I also agree with your reasoning that the product that is doing better should be the one featured. I think in most cases, the product that is doing better is going to be the advertiser, because they’ll have the money to spend.
Heidi
I’m going off the assumption this quote means that if both products are the same, we would be more likely to use the product that gets advertised more on the TV, radio and etc than the one that doesn’t get advertised much or at all. And I believe that there are times this could be true, but I don’t believe this would hold true all of the time. For example, do I really want to buy a product if it is being advertised by a celebrity who I have no respect for? The answer is probably not. It is also important to choose a credible source because an audience will be more receptive to your message if you choose the right person to deliver it. For example, it makes sense for Rachael Ray to advertise cooking products, but I’m not going to be sold by the ad if Katy Perry or Lady Gaga is delivering the message because I have no clue what connection they have to the product. In addition, I believe ads are only successful if you consider what other people are going to think about the message you are sending because an ad could always come off in a negative light depending on the content of it. However, I think some people will only choose to buy a product if the actions of the company matches their values, and so they will base their decisions off of what the news reports about the company rather than a convincing ad. I think it is also important to consider some people might not buy a product if they get annoyed by the ad because it shows up during their TV shows way too often and so they end up getting sick of it. In fact, there are many times where I might just avoid buying a product because I believe the company is trying too hard to get me or other people to buy the product, and I don’t think everyone appreciates the aggressive approach because it doesn’t come off as sincere. However, there are some people who might be more likely to buy a product if they see an ad that really catches their eye. In conclusion, I think companies just need to keep in mind what message is being sent out by the ad because you have to be aware of how people are going to react since negative reactions aren’t going to be beneficial for your company.
Like many of the other people who responded to this post, I am a little confused about what the editor was saying.This seems like a pretty vague statement that doesn’t really make sense out of context. However, after re-reading the quote several times, I think I have at least somewhat of an understanding of what is being asked. Hopefully this explanation answers the question, but I really wouldn’t be surprised if I’m just grasping at straws…. You’ve been warned.
Anyway, I think that going with the advertiser is a smarter route in the long run, as it affects both prominence and return on investment. Advertisers are generally more prominent than other products that are not advertisers. Even if the products are equal in every other way, the advertiser is more than likely more well-known than the product that is not an advertiser. Generally speaking, consumers will respond better to advertisers than to unknown products, and the advertiser will gain more of an audience than the other product, which will ultimately increase the magazine’s return on investment. When magazines use advertisers, they are guaranteed to get a bigger return on investment than if they use a product that is unknown.
The magazine may also want to use the advertiser because they might be getting paid to use it. For example, if given the choice between Item A and Item B, if Item B is guaranteeing payment for use of the item, it makes more sense for the magazine to use Item B.