Canadian Publishing Industry News
12 September 2013, TORONTO
Chatelaine partners with Target for special issue
 |
|
|
Rogers Media touts the partnership as the first time a consumer magazine has released a branded issue with editorial content dedicated to a sole sponsor.
Chatelaine Shops Target features original content, "inspired by the editors' own shopping trips to Target Canada." Readers can expect the regular trend talk--apparel, beauty, home, food, healthcare--but within the retailer's aisles.
"Like every issue of Chatelaine, for this 13th bonus issue, our editors selected the best products and solutions to help our readers make everyday extraordinary," said publisher Tara Tucker in a release. "The only difference is this time they went to Target to find their inspirational ideas."
Rogers says that editorial was handled entirely by the mag's team, but notes that the Rogers Media Creative Group did collaborate with Target to develop original ad content.
 |
|
|
This continues a year of power moves from both brands. Target, one of the biggest retailers in the world, entered Canada to much fanfare opening 68 outlets, and the 85-year-old Chatelaine launched a growing line of anniversary initiatives. It redesigned, kickstarted a radio program, released branded products and continues to nurture the relationship it has with Rogers-owned TV network City, which will run a special Chatelaine Edition Sept. 17 featuring ideas and tips from Chatelaine Shops Target.
The 132-page issue (with 52 ad pages, according to Chatelaine's fellow Rogers-owned mag Marketing) comes in four variant covers and will be mailed to subscribers on Sept. 23. Shoppers who buy something at Target will also receive the issue for free at select locations. All content will be available on tablet and online.
Most Recent News Comment
 |
|
| Jaded says: | |
Wow, Torstar really seems to be on a mission to bankrupt one magazine after another.... |
|
Most Recent Blog Comment
|
|
| Lorene Shyba says: | |
Full of terrific information, Thanks!... |
|
Advertising is tough these days for sure, and I did not feel that the brand crossed any lines, they were completely upfront about the partnership. I think as an industry we are highly sensitive and underestimate our readers. Plus, I have seen many a partnership that does cross the line that nobody says anything about. Finally we see a Canadian magazine doing something truly innovative with a partner. If this was in the States or Europe we would all be copying them, but since it was here first we are turning on them. Shame shame.
Congrats to whoever came up with the brilliant idea and for Chatelaine to do it and Target to still seeing the amazing value that magazine advertising has to offer.
What constitutes editorial integrity for a shopping magazine? Hmm, I guess I'd start with some people who really know how to shop and identify pieces and looks that are worthy of being endorsed, advertisers or not. Do I want you doing this at one retailer? Uh, no.
And if you do give Target the Chatelaine/Wish treatment, it's implicit that you're really only doing this because Target gave you a wad of cash to do so. So yes, most readers understand that you just prostituted yourself, that your magazine is now pretty much a cover-to-cover promo ad, and they may or may not be okay with that. For a magazine, that is far from irrelevant.
Disclaimers aside, Chatelaine prostituted its brand. Even Ken Whyte wouldn't argue this. He might twist this way � research shows X! � and that � it's free! � but the bottom line is that he did his best Roxanne imitation and the red (Target) light is on.
Giving up control means giving up their ability to control the messaging.
Which is what a PR team does when they send samples for editors to review or when they invite them to a product launch. Respected editors STILL provide credible information to their readers even though one may say they partnered with PR to get the scoop, samples, merchandise etc. No?
And Maclean's did not use Apple or products available at Apple stores to inspire an entire issue. That is the differentiator. And also the source of angst for those commenting.
However, research has shown that when we are transparent with the reader and openly communicate the relationship of a partnership, that they judge the product by the merit of the piece & whether it adds value to them (even adverorials or custom content).
Given the breadth of product at Target (and many other retailers) from Essie to LeapPad to Vera Wang Princess to Kitchen Aid to Speedo- there would seem to be plenty to cover in an authentic way that could be of interest to the consumer and reader.
It seems to me that The New Yorker smartly navigated what people are debating in this thread ("stop complaining, people, because magazines are dying" vs "if you keep this up, magazines are going to lose their audience and die"). They gave Target a tasteful brush with The New Yorker without allowing the retailer to compromise its editorial integrity in any long lasting way. And let's face it, that's what Chatelaine did here, no matter how smartly it was done. It's the magazine version of an ode to Target by the Chatelaine editorial team (funded in part, by the way, by the millions Rogers receives from Heritage Canada's Periodical Fund).
It provides a short-term uptick but raises a whole host of problems, some of which will involve managing the expectations of advertisers down the road.
Finally, I visited my first Target to do some back-to-school shopping recently and I'm sure glad I didn't have to write anything based on that experience. It was seriously underwhelming.
I understand who pays the bills, but if we think our readers are going to be satisfied with paying to receive a glorified flyer, we as an industry are doing those subscribers a major disservice -- and that disservice can put us out of business.
A short-term bump in revenue can cause a long-term decline in readership and overall revenue. We have to be cautious about the business decisions we make.
If the driving force is ensuring that the content that we create is unique and serves to benefit the reader, we will build their loyalty, which a well-trained ad rep can leverage with advertisers to ensure that we can pay the bills. If our business decision puts content in front of a reader who then questions why they are being fed ad material rather than the quality content they expect, that weakens the magazine's relationship with said reader, and the ability to leverage that relationship when selling the ads that pay the bills.
There are not enough people in this industry who take long-term views of their products... it is easy to get blinded by the prospect of a nice commission or bonus, but we can't afford to sacrifice our publications' long-term prospects for a short-term bump to the bottom line.
Church & state IS maintained when an advertising partner trusts in a brand and relinquishes all ability to see, comment or approve content. I will refrain from judgement until I see the end product.
As an industry we need to maintain our principles as we adapt to the changing market realities & landscape. We need less infighting & more forward thinking. It's time for magazines to grow up.
Regardless of how they spin it, I'm sure Walmart is taking a second look at this. It would not be surprising if a custom publishing contract is up for grabs soon.
Considering that Rogers tried to mandate that freelancers could not do work for companies that they considered to be competitive to them (I know several writers who were threatened with losing regular gigs), it's funny to see that they don't have any problem trying to do the same thing with their customers.