![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rkt'Consumer Reports' has a new, unbiased sister magazine for shoppers
By Jayne O'Donnell, USA TODAY ed: net zero feeds me usa today links
ShopSmart, the new shopping magazine for women, hit newsstands this month — with a twist.
Like sister publication Consumer Reports, but unlike its competitors, ShopSmart accepts no advertising or free samples from companies. Ads and sample freebies are two staples of traditional women's and shopping magazines. But ShopSmart's editor-in-chief says those factors may unduly influence the magazines' coverage.
The editor-in-chief, Lisa Lee Freeman, who's worked for several women's magazines, says, "The difference is we're 100% unbiased."
Consumer Reports, owned by the non-profit consumer advocacy group Consumers Union, receives some grants from foundations and individuals. But it's run mostly with money from subscriptions to the magazine and its website.
Freeman says Consumer Reports spends millions of dollars a year to buy everything it tests, from cars to computers to skin creams. It employs hundreds of anonymous shoppers around the country who buy products for testing.
Freeman says it's crucial for shopping magazines to enjoy the public's trust and notes that the type of products ShopSmart features, in particular, require independence. Along with detailing how synthetic many purportedly "organic" creams really are, for instance, ShopSmart's first issue reviews family cars, child seats and diet supplements. There are 800,000 issues on newsstands.
Along with recommending what readers should buy, ShopSmart also suggests what they not buy — something Freeman notes is unusual among shopping magazines.
But ShopSmart's rivals insist that they aren't influenced by ads and that the extent of free samples is misunderstood. Even the editors at Hearst's ShopEtc., which went so far as to use an ad for Target as its August cover, say the line between advertising and editorial content isn't as blurred as some assume. That 2-year-old magazine has a circulation of 675,000.
In a statement, Shop Etc. denies any notion that ads influence its editorial content. Instead, "Our editors personally research and test products to determine which will make the grade to be included in the pages of the magazine."
As for that Target cover ad, it was a "mutually beneficial idea that communicated the excitement of Target's new wrapping paper."
Kim France, editor-in-chief of shopping magazine Lucky, says it's "like church and state" at her magazine in regard to the advertising/editorial separation. France says readers of Lucky, with a circulation of 1.1 million, "trust us." She notes it often features fashion by designers who "don't have two nickels to rub together for advertising."
As for freebies from businesses, France says the only items that aren't sent back are cosmetics, which must be used to be tested. She says Lucky holds beauty and cosmetic sales and donates the proceeds to charity. The fashions displayed in the magazine are selected by editors who visit designer showrooms, and are later returned.
And, besides, many magazine readers enjoy ads, ShopEtc. says. "Our advertisements are part of the overall reading experience," ShopEtc. said in its statement. "In a 2006 subscriber study Shop Etc. conducted, 83% of readers said our ads are an important reason for them to come to Shop Etc."
Magazine expert and journalism professor Samir Husni agrees.
"The value of no advertising has been greatly exaggerated," says Husni, head of the University of Mississippi journalism department. "Editors work as your gatekeepers" for what products deserve mention, not advertisers.
Freeman says she thinks that there's "trouble in the industry" and that a "blending" of advertising and editorial is one of the unfortunate results. France acknowledges, "The market in general is pretty tight" but notes the September issues are fat with advertising, which makes it "hard to feel a panic."
Still, editors can't ignore that shopping magazines, including Cargo and Vitals Man and Vitals Woman, have folded recently. Freeman's goal? "We put 800,000 on newsstands and hope to sell them all."
Consumer psychologist Kit Yarrow applauds ShopSmart, saying too many women "think they're getting advice in these magazines, but they're really getting advertisements disguised as editorial content. It's a pet peeve of mine."
i'm not surprised that a head of a journalism department doesn't consider advertising to be a threat to journalistic integrity. my guess is the advertising department for the university is within the journalism department itself.
this doesn't mean i don't think he's a delusional ass.
also, the term "sister ______" annoys me.
also, i have another article scheduled for monday, which is today, but i'm still referencing this as a sunday post. so there.
By Jayne O'Donnell, USA TODAY ed: net zero feeds me usa today links
ShopSmart, the new shopping magazine for women, hit newsstands this month — with a twist.
Like sister publication Consumer Reports, but unlike its competitors, ShopSmart accepts no advertising or free samples from companies. Ads and sample freebies are two staples of traditional women's and shopping magazines. But ShopSmart's editor-in-chief says those factors may unduly influence the magazines' coverage.
The editor-in-chief, Lisa Lee Freeman, who's worked for several women's magazines, says, "The difference is we're 100% unbiased."
Consumer Reports, owned by the non-profit consumer advocacy group Consumers Union, receives some grants from foundations and individuals. But it's run mostly with money from subscriptions to the magazine and its website.
Freeman says Consumer Reports spends millions of dollars a year to buy everything it tests, from cars to computers to skin creams. It employs hundreds of anonymous shoppers around the country who buy products for testing.
Freeman says it's crucial for shopping magazines to enjoy the public's trust and notes that the type of products ShopSmart features, in particular, require independence. Along with detailing how synthetic many purportedly "organic" creams really are, for instance, ShopSmart's first issue reviews family cars, child seats and diet supplements. There are 800,000 issues on newsstands.
Along with recommending what readers should buy, ShopSmart also suggests what they not buy — something Freeman notes is unusual among shopping magazines.
But ShopSmart's rivals insist that they aren't influenced by ads and that the extent of free samples is misunderstood. Even the editors at Hearst's ShopEtc., which went so far as to use an ad for Target as its August cover, say the line between advertising and editorial content isn't as blurred as some assume. That 2-year-old magazine has a circulation of 675,000.
In a statement, Shop Etc. denies any notion that ads influence its editorial content. Instead, "Our editors personally research and test products to determine which will make the grade to be included in the pages of the magazine."
As for that Target cover ad, it was a "mutually beneficial idea that communicated the excitement of Target's new wrapping paper."
Kim France, editor-in-chief of shopping magazine Lucky, says it's "like church and state" at her magazine in regard to the advertising/editorial separation. France says readers of Lucky, with a circulation of 1.1 million, "trust us." She notes it often features fashion by designers who "don't have two nickels to rub together for advertising."
As for freebies from businesses, France says the only items that aren't sent back are cosmetics, which must be used to be tested. She says Lucky holds beauty and cosmetic sales and donates the proceeds to charity. The fashions displayed in the magazine are selected by editors who visit designer showrooms, and are later returned.
And, besides, many magazine readers enjoy ads, ShopEtc. says. "Our advertisements are part of the overall reading experience," ShopEtc. said in its statement. "In a 2006 subscriber study Shop Etc. conducted, 83% of readers said our ads are an important reason for them to come to Shop Etc."
Magazine expert and journalism professor Samir Husni agrees.
"The value of no advertising has been greatly exaggerated," says Husni, head of the University of Mississippi journalism department. "Editors work as your gatekeepers" for what products deserve mention, not advertisers.
Freeman says she thinks that there's "trouble in the industry" and that a "blending" of advertising and editorial is one of the unfortunate results. France acknowledges, "The market in general is pretty tight" but notes the September issues are fat with advertising, which makes it "hard to feel a panic."
Still, editors can't ignore that shopping magazines, including Cargo and Vitals Man and Vitals Woman, have folded recently. Freeman's goal? "We put 800,000 on newsstands and hope to sell them all."
Consumer psychologist Kit Yarrow applauds ShopSmart, saying too many women "think they're getting advice in these magazines, but they're really getting advertisements disguised as editorial content. It's a pet peeve of mine."
i'm not surprised that a head of a journalism department doesn't consider advertising to be a threat to journalistic integrity. my guess is the advertising department for the university is within the journalism department itself.
this doesn't mean i don't think he's a delusional ass.
also, the term "sister ______" annoys me.
also, i have another article scheduled for monday, which is today, but i'm still referencing this as a sunday post. so there.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Oh my goodness no, how ever could advertising affect editorial?
Date: 2006-08-14 05:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-14 05:40 am (UTC)Please join,
no subject
Date: 2006-08-14 01:24 pm (UTC)Anyway, they are obviously asking the wrong people. Ask a journalism prof and of course they will sing the high praises of journalistic freedoms even while teaching advirtising scripts to their undergrads so they can get jobs. Ask a media studies/sociology/anthropology/psychology prof, and they would tell you media placement theory, exposure theory, etc etc etc, and tell you just how biased everyone is, especially those whose salaries are paid for by advirtisers.
I do think its funny that the three mags listed as having folded recently I"ve never heard of. I'm no shopping mag guru or anything, but seriously. If Lucky folds, thats one thing, but Cargo? Who the fuck has ever heard of Cargo?
That would be .02 x 3 = Sixth Cenths!
Re: Oh my goodness no, how ever could advertising affect editorial?
Date: 2006-08-14 08:09 pm (UTC)sounds like they have a lot of things to think over.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-14 08:15 pm (UTC)i vaguely remember cargo. but i'm special and i've been known to wander magazine sections aimlessly. i'm apparently not so special to have been a CR tester. (i did get to be a johnson's wax tester so my high school could get moneys.) i'm jealous.
my media studies degree is a journalism degree, as it would have been had i opted for advertising. the world of academia is a wild and crazy place.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-14 08:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-14 08:44 pm (UTC)I guess my bias comes from the fact that my school's communications program was almost entirely theoretical, much to they annoyance of all the wannabe journalism students. They didn't create a journalism track until my junior year, and that was mostly in collaboration with the English program. Oh well. Such is academia.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-15 02:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-15 05:41 am (UTC)damn. what are odds?