A Shot in the Dark?
The August 22 issue of The New Yorker featured one advertiser. If you haven't already heard, Target bought every single ad space in the magazine and had each designed by a different artist, prompting immediate media buzz and hundreds of headlines playfully targeting the word target. Brenner Thomas shoots down notions of editorial compromise but asks the question, "What would it mean if an advertiser purchased the entire year's worth of real estate, or two years?"
For the record, I thought Target's strategy worked like a charm with the New Yorker's format. My strategy for reading this mag is to first "cartoon hop" through it, reading the funnies first before floating back to the features. Target took that very common navigational habit and used it to its advantage. My only worry for similarly branded future issues is that the advertiser might be someone like Lamisil.
Every New Yorker is a Target [design observer]
New Yorker Misses the Target [sun times]
The New Yorker is Right on Target [market watch]
Discount Retailer Goes to the New Yorker [slate]
The New Yorker's Target Audience [gothamist]
Target Targets New Yorker [wow report]
Posted Aug. 24,2005 at 10:28 AM EST by Andy Towle in Print Media | Permalink
Yeah, having every ad by Target wasn't as obnoxious as I expected it might be, since each one was more a work of art (though I did grow a little weary of seeing the pervasive bull's eye everywhere). And to be honest, by the end of the magazine, I actually was like, where are the products? I need products! ;) In any case, I think my favorite ads of the issue are by Stina Persson (inside front cover) and Ruben Toledo (back cover). I'm on a watercolor kick.
Posted by: Jeff | Aug 24, 2005 1:37:48 PM
What I liked about the issue and the ads is that there was no correlation between the ads and the editorial content. The New Yorker didn't divulge what stories or topics would be in the issue to Target. The result is a nice disconnect between the art and the articles, and therefore both can stand on their own. I thought it was a really nifty idea and I love Target, so am thankful it wasn't a Wal-Mart ad buy.
Posted by: Ed | Aug 24, 2005 1:43:44 PM
I think it's great you listed designobserver.com in your links. There are some really insightful thoughts there for others to read from some great minds. I'm going to post here (as I did on 'do') a sidebar topic... I've lived in New York for 14 years and watched the events of 9/11 happen in front of me. When I received my Target New Yorker - I, within a few pages became really unsettled by viewing a bullseye applied to images of the city. I'm not saying this shouldn't have been done, but by the time I got to the end, I did start to feel that some discretion could have been used. On another note, as always, I do feel as though it is quite sad that the Target store never seems to live up to it's brand image. Peace.
Posted by: Me | Aug 24, 2005 2:20:58 PM
ME,
I understand your reservations, but Target has used the logo for many years pre-dating 9-11. Had they created the logo after 9-11, yes it would be insensitive but I didn't even give it a second though while viewing the issue. What I noted was some really cool artwork, and was impressed by the different styles. I also lived through 9-11 in New York but as this was done without any kind of animosity, I think you may be a bit hypersensitive.
Posted by: Steve | Aug 24, 2005 2:29:54 PM
1) Glad you confirm my way of reading the New Yorker is not a personal eccentricity.
2) As a foreign subscriber I found the ads distracting and incomprehensible. I mean I knew they were ads but for what?
3)The New Yorker and Target (as I now know them to be) are weeping wild salty tears over point 2)
Posted by: campbell | Aug 25, 2005 5:53:16 AM
Lamisil is a really really good product.
(ever noticed that their commercial mascot looks like a pug?!)
Posted by: Jeremy | Aug 25, 2005 12:54:16 PM
Blech, those Lamisil ads are nasty. The lifted toenail is what does it for me.
Target at least has a snazzy (for some) logo.
Posted by: Steve | Aug 25, 2005 2:28:31 PM