pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on mon 1 sep 03
Pooping Moose Mugs...
Hi John,
I think there are maybe some seperate things here as have
become confused...
Any 'Magazine' should be regarded as having the potential to
excert it's own editorial criteria, whether one agrees with
it or not.
The appearant viability or import of a prospectively
advertised product, or to whom
in the
larger marketplace, has nothing to do with it, nor anything
to do with their oblige to accomidate it in their
advertisments. It is their
Magazine...they can and will do as they see fit.
You might consider having a different version of your 'ad'
as maybe features an otherwise charming 'Moose' Mug merely,
and as mentions an
offering of a Catalogue as may be had upon application, in
which various other kinds-of
'Mugs' and so on may be represented without need of the
Magazine's editorial policies or personages to be involved
with the content of that Catalogue or it's representations
of what products as are offered in it.
The editors would be appeased, and your customers may be
pleased to recieve the Catalogue from which they shall
discover your pooping-Moose Mug, as well as whatever other
Mugs or variants you elect to offer them...
I think that would solve the dilemma somewhat...
Yours!
Phil
Las Vegas
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Rodgers"
> Once I sold a locally famous mug through a magazine
dedicated to a
> certain geographical region. The mug had ceramic moose
dropping
> facsimilies in the bottom. I sold just over 10,000 of them
as a result
> of the magazine add. So why not sell it through more
magazines, I said
> to myself. So I contacted a series of outdoor magazines -
Outdoor Life,
> Field and Stream, etc, their West Coast advertising
editors, sent
> samples of the mug. They all loved it, thought it would do
great. But at
> the last minute, every single one of them backed up
saying, we have to
> check with our New York Office on Madison Avenue
first.........and to a
> man and magazine.....every single one of the east coast
offices where
> the real power was, rejected the ad as not having
compatible editorial
> content for the magazine.
| |
|
