I normally don’t read magazines in print. I mostly snack-read online, sampling bits and pieces of articles from Google News and Drudge that tantalize me. But occasionally, I’ll glance through Reader’s Digest (when I’m stuck in the bathroom with absolutely nothing else) or a copy of Wired.
During these rare interactions with the paper-and-ink format, one thing always stands out to me: excessive ads. Often, more than half their content is sponsored (ads or advertorials). The editors just don’t know when to quit. And this seems to be the case with almost every major publication. I imagine this ad-happy trend has to do with audience fragmentation, which leads to dwindling readership, which results in lower prices for ad space, which means a lower bottom line. The easiest and most obvious fix? Crank up the number of ads to make up the difference. Brilliant! Business model saved, right?
But hold on a sec. Once you start down that road, you risk damaging your magazine’s brand, because you look like a sellout. You give the impression that you care more about your advertisers than your readers. Not a good move. Readers get you advertisers; not the other way around.
On top of that, your brand holds less luster for advertisers because they’re now competing against more ads for the reader’s attention. That clutter can also drive down the value of your ad space. So, what you get is a vicious cycle of ever-increasing ads, ever-dwindling readership and ever-declining profits. Let’s just call it ad inflation (I don’t know if someone already coined this phrase, but I’ll just take credit for now). It’s an unsustainable practice that the magazine industry (and TV and newspaper industries, for that matter) seems to be embracing—with no immediate sign of recovery.
The solution to clutter isn’t more clutter.
You see, ad inflation is similar to monetary inflation: it responds to the laws of economics. When you increase the supply of dollars—either by printing more or creating credit from thin air—you don’t magically create wealth, you just lower the value of all dollars by the amount you printed/credited. Likewise, when you increase the ad supply, it makes the value of ads, overall, decline.
Call me crazy, but I think there’s a sweet business opportunity here for some smart company looking to carve out a niche in the market. Why not make a magazine (or newspaper, TV network or whatever) that makes a written commitment to its audience (perhaps on the cover, just under the masthead) to limit the ads to…say, 10 per issue? Unrealistic? Absurd? Maybe. But I think it would be a win for readers, advertisers and publication owners. Here’s why:
- You would maintain a level of trust with your readers that no one in the industry has (yes, loading up your mag with tons of crappy ads destroys your readers’ trust—even if you are their favorite publication).
- It would be a coveted placement for smart advertisers because they wouldn’t get lost in the shuffle. Their ad would be much more likely to be warmly received and vividly remembered.
- Advertisers would have a feeling of exclusivity and prestige just for getting into your publication, adding even more value to your sponsored space.
- No one else would dare do it. As Marty Neumeier would say, when everyone else zigs, you ZAG. It’s a smart, unique strategy that would create a high-performance brand (assuming you have great editorial content in the first place).
- Sustainability. For both the environment and your bottom line. With less ads, you’d use less paper and ink, and save on postage costs, too.
So, that’s my simple solution for ad inflation. I may be dreaming, but I hear it’s good to do that every once in a while.
P.S. All you entrepreneurs out there, feel free to run with this idea—free of all charges, licensing fees and royalties. This one’s on me. Just hook me up with a free subscription of your 10-ad-only magazine and a dinner for me and my wife at some fancy-schmancy restaurant…when you make your first million.




