Big Entitled Babies At The Local College Newspaper
College is so not the real world, and some college students realize that; though, not those on the college newspaper at UCLA, The Daily Bruin.
They got a big front page ad for Haagen-Dazs -- just as newspapers are gasping for advertising and going out of business right and left -- and what do they do, but...cry and whine about it in print, and insult the advertiser:
In what we all hope will not be a recurring situation, the Daily Bruin senior staff has begrudgingly agreed to run an advertisement as the front page of today's paper. We see it as a regrettable but relatively unavoidable consequence of the recent financial trends devastating our sources of revenue and our industry.Many of us volunteered to forfeit our pay in order to ensure that the ad would not run, but because some of our staff members could not afford to use their paychecks to make a statement, we have been forced to go along quietly.
The reality of our financial situation is grim, and the fact of the matter is that we would have been forced to cut thousands of dollars from an ever-tightening budget if we had not run this advertisement.
We were forced to make a decision we find distasteful at best - and dishonest and unethical at worst - because of the ever-present and unrelenting reality of the economy and the downturn of the journalism industry.
Much of our staff, the members of this board especially, are invested in the Daily Bruin and the practice of journalism on a personal level, and nothing pains us more than to see the cover and name of our beloved publication sullied for the sake of survival.
We weighed every possible alternative and appealed to every relevent authority for a solution, but our efforts were ultimately fruitless.
Our hope is that our readers will not dismiss us as the sell-outs we feel like.
Idiots! Idiots! Perhaps partly because I'm somebody who started in advertising (at Ogilvy & Mather, right out of college, where I went to learn how to do film and TV on somebody else's dime rather than going to grad school on my parents'), I have respect for advertising. Also, perhaps because I'm not a drooling idiot.
The ads, you teenaged twats, are what keeps the paper in business. If you go on to real newspapers, you'd do well to be really nice to the sales staff, and even thank them from time to time. Without them, you'll be writing P.R. copy or working as a barista -- if you're lucky. Not a lot of jobs out there these days, kittens.
Oh yeah -- this guy, on Romenesko, the media news site, was right on. Mark Phillips writes:
From the editorial:"Many of us volunteered to forfeit our pay in order to ensure that the ad would not run, but because some of our staff members could not afford to use their paychecks to make a statement, we have been forced to go along quietly."
Try forfeiting your paycheck when you have a mortgage.
Next time someone buys a really expensive ad, thank them instead.
Good for you Amy! As a graduate of the UofC, I'd like to remind these people that the taxpayers are the ones providing them their education, for the most part.
Eric at April 8, 2009 9:21 AM
To me, having advertising in a publication is the ultimate sign of respectability and a real vote of confidence. The advertisers wouldn't be willing to spend their investors' hard-earned dollars running adds in a publication that they did not consider to be, at some level at least, serious. It is regrettable that these idealistic young folks can't see that.
Dennis at April 8, 2009 9:45 AM
I wonder if these student have considered the alternative. If they don't like advertising, they could actually charge people for the paper. I don't think they'd survive into next week.
Tyler at April 8, 2009 9:48 AM
I am an ad designer at a small newspaper, so this is personal for me. My hours have been cut to barely 20 hours per week, and several of my friends have been laid off. We've never run an ad on the front page, but if anyone was willing to spend that kind of money, we would all be thrilled! And we would be furious if any advertising was turned down for any ridiculous high-and-mighty standards. I don't even understand what the students' objections were - what the hell is dishonest or unethical about it? An ad on the front page is perhaps ugly, but that's about it.
Karen at April 8, 2009 10:01 AM
Although I know little about journalism, I'm rather unmoved by The Daily Bruin staff's moral dilemma. Those horrible Haagen-Dazs people, helping them actually meet production costs (including employee pay)!
One more thing:
Much of our staff ... are invested in the Daily Bruin and the practice of journalism on a personal level ...
Is there a journalist in the house who can tell me what "journalism on a personal level" means?
old rpm daddy at April 8, 2009 10:10 AM
Students who work on the college paper get PAID?
Bertha at April 8, 2009 10:13 AM
What fucking idiots. Every day, I lean a little more to hoping my kids go military (if that's an option by then!) instead of college. They'd learn more. I hope Hagen Daz pulls their ads asap, and let's the dumbasses go under.
momof3 at April 8, 2009 10:21 AM
Not only entitled babies, Amy, but dumb babies too!
It's pretty peculiar for the students to bitch about ad creep in a newspaper being "a consequence of the recent financial trends".
According to press historian (and journalist) Andrew Marr the publication officially recognized as Britain's first newspaper, the Oxford Gazette, was "swamped" by ads from its launch issue - which was in 1665.
(Fact nicked from his brilliantly entertaining newspaper history, "My Trade".)
Jody Tresidder at April 8, 2009 10:24 AM
I understand their dilemma, but they have a choice: Either run the ad or don't run the ad. Certainly, don't run the ad then try to convince everyone that you're really the kind of people who would never run a front-page ad.
MonicaP at April 8, 2009 10:57 AM
I disagree with the analysis, here. What I see is an attempt to maintain the traditions of journalism. Traditionally, no matter how much advertising you run, the news content of the front page is sacrosanct.
Placing a ad there is pretty obvious. They had a choice of ignoring the elephant in the room or acknowledging it. I respect their choice of letting the readers know what's going on. I don't read that as an insult to the advertiser, but an explanation about how the rules are necessarily changing.
Ron at April 8, 2009 11:08 AM
Ah college! The blessed days where Mom & Dad are still picking the bills. If they want to live by the creed of the Non-Material, they can. I just hope the door leading to the real life will not slam on their foot when will leave their sheltered world.
Toubrouk at April 8, 2009 11:33 AM
If I were making the ad decisions at Haagen-Dazs, I would never place another ad in that paper again. The students essentially told them, "OK, we'll take your dirty, stinking money, but only because we're desperate. We're too good for you!"
MonicaP at April 8, 2009 11:41 AM
They had a choice of ignoring the elephant in the room or acknowledging it. I respect their choice of letting the readers know what's going on. I don't read that as an insult to the advertiser, but an explanation about how the rules are necessarily changing.
Acknowledging that the rules are changing and telling the readers about it is one thing.
But whining in print that running advertising is so distasteful that "Many of us volunteered to forfeit our pay in order to ensure that the ad would not run..." and that "nothing pains us more than to see the cover and name of our beloved publication sullied" is insulting to the readers, advertising in general, and to the newspaper itself.
Conan the Grammarian at April 8, 2009 11:48 AM
Not to mention that it smacks of self-righteous condescension.
Conan the Grammarian at April 8, 2009 11:54 AM
An ad on the front page is perhaps ugly,
An ad on the front page is beautiful. It makes it possible to also put news on the front page. Without ads, there's no newspaper at all.
Amy Alkon at April 8, 2009 11:56 AM
I didn't get paid when I was a photographer for my university or my college newspaper. Weird.
They are considering adding economics to the curriculum in our public schools here, which I think these kids should pick up in their next semester.
Chrissy at April 8, 2009 12:04 PM
>>What I see is an attempt to maintain the traditions of journalism. Traditionally, no matter how much advertising you run, the news content of the front page is sacrosanct.
Wrong, Ron.
The front page of the New York Herald in the 1890s contained no news at all. The first two or three pages of the Herald were typically devoted to classified advertising...
Source: Joseph Campbell: "The Year That Defined American Journalism: 1897 and the Clash of Paradigms"
Jody Tresidder at April 8, 2009 12:17 PM
The quote says "run an advertisement as the front page" not an ad on the front page, but as the front page. Much more then an ad on the front of a paper and I am going to figure it is nothing but garbage. While the wining does sound bad and is probably a bad idea the point about running an ad for the front page seems worse. In paper that runs an ad on the front page at all is going to not be taken seriously by me.
The Former Banker at April 8, 2009 12:43 PM
"An ad on the front page is beautiful."
I was simply trying to understand the objections to the front page ad - I still don't get why it is dishonest or unethical.
Remember, I'm an ad designer. I'm all for advertising. I've worked on ads for businesses that I've found objectionable and for politicians that I've disagreed with, but I've never complained because ads are what keeps the newspaper going. It's never been more obvious than now, with the decline of ads making the paper smaller, which makes less people want to read it, which makes less businesses buy ads, etc.
Karen at April 8, 2009 12:54 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/04/08/big_entitled_ba.html#comment-1642181">comment from The Former BankerThe quote says "run an advertisement as the front page" not an ad on the front page, but as the front page.
I got that yesterday when I read about it -- I blogged it when I was tired. I still feel exactly the same. How great of Haagen-Dazs to support newspapers by advertising their business in them.
Amy Alkon at April 8, 2009 12:59 PM
ah, idealistic youth... just seems like not that many are idealistic about commerce.
SwissArmyD at April 8, 2009 1:07 PM
The "real" newspapers here soemtimes have false first pages that are nothing but full-page advertisments. Readers simply...wait for it...turn the page to get to the news.
The journalistic credibility of the newspaper is not strained or besmirched in any way due to these advertisements.
The readers are only slightly inconvenienced (in fact, much less inconvenienced than they were when the newstand price was doubled due to a dropoff in advertising revenue).
Conan the Grammarian at April 8, 2009 1:17 PM
I missed the fact that it was a full page ad. I actually like that idea a lot better.
Karen at April 8, 2009 1:26 PM
As I understand it, it is not an ad on the front cover but a fake cover. Once you turn the page, the real cover reveals, with no ads. Like a lot of magazines do these days.
Inés Van Gelderen at April 8, 2009 1:45 PM
Only in California...(well, chiefly UCLA or Berkley)
(Imagine me rolling my eyes)
Robert at April 8, 2009 1:54 PM
Oh, please. Everybody knows there's actually a Money Fairy who funds newspapers!
(Yep, Haagen-Daz should pull their ads. They don't need to advertize to me, anyhow. I know that sh!t's delicous.)
ahw at April 8, 2009 1:56 PM
Hmm, ice cream on the outside... cheese on the inside. I guess I'm being harsh, having not seen the content.
Maybe I'd be more sympathetic if the mainstream people were actually doing information, rather than event reporting.
Is there a journalist in the house who can tell me what "journalism on a personal level" means?
A blog, of course.
I'm surprised I have to explain these things.
Radwaste at April 8, 2009 2:11 PM
Costco's Gourmet Vanilla beats Haagen Daaz hands down. I have become addicted to an ice cream cone topped with about a tablespoon of Gran Marnier recently. The key is to drill a hole in the middle like a volcano.... for the ultimate melt a ghiradelli chocolate in the microwave and pour over said cone.
PS- I am for legalizing marijuana.
Eric at April 8, 2009 5:28 PM
Eric:
My Keyboard singing Queen: "Another One Bites the Dust"
Note to self: No drinking soda pop and reading comments at the same time
AdoringFan at April 8, 2009 5:42 PM
Adoring Fan: Nothing speaks louder about vanilla ice cream than the late Freddie Mecury!
Eric (fan of Queen) at April 8, 2009 5:51 PM
maybe someone from Haagen-dazs should throw an ice cream cake in the editor's face.
Norman L. at April 8, 2009 10:35 PM
btw, I read where even 'Mad' magazine had to start using ads a few years ago.
Norman L. at April 8, 2009 10:36 PM
"Is there a journalist in the house who can tell me what "journalism on a personal level" means?"
rpm, "journalism on a personal level" is precisely what's wrong with most of the newspaper industry these days.
Cousin Dave at April 9, 2009 6:54 AM
Geeze, they get a full-page ad, and whine about it? Ridiculous. I admit I'm predisposed to favor HD (yum, yum, yum, even their lower cal sorbets are good) but c'mon. Even if they were something I hate, it's are you kidding me time?
Not too much on the front page but the Sunday comics of the local rag usually have an annoying ad cover over them. However, the most common advertiser is a local (no name) home improvement guy and a lot of his stuff is so Sims, I'm amused. If I owned my own home, I probably would be amused enough to go into his store. And I can't be alone since he seems to be surviving with plenty of competition from Lowe's and Home Depot.
Advertising. A win-win situation. Deal. There's too few of those to go around. And even fewer three-way wins as this is (the paper makes out, the advertiser gets business and the reader can afford to buy the paper).
T's Grammy at April 9, 2009 6:56 AM
LA Times facing the same issues:
http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090409/los-angeles-times-staff-fake-news-story-embarrassing-and-demoralizing/
franko at April 9, 2009 3:58 PM
This is FRONT PAGE NEWS!
Jason S. at April 9, 2009 4:39 PM
A fake news story is a tad worse but looking at it on that link -- only a tad. The freaking huge banner with the NBC peacock reading paid advertisement ought to tip anyone with a clue off and the paper should just be glad for the revenue.
That said, I stayed up for "Southland". What a disappointment. It was really lame.
T's Grammy at April 10, 2009 6:48 AM
Leave a comment