If Your Client’s Product Is Crap… So Is Yours

I’ve worked on a couple dozen annual report, magazine, and promotional projects in the past 5 or so years. Almost all of which involved me collecting dozens of ads from companies, their agencies, etc…

At least half of them didn’t have a professional designing their ads, rather, they had someone in the “marketing” department throw it together last minute because they were just offered a discounted run rate to fill the ad spots.

Entrepreneur Magazine, almost every newspaper, and many other publications have traded standards for money. It’s a shame.

I don’t think it really matters who it reflects on, because if I can’t read it - I won’t.

I think I’m pretty immune to most advertising anyway. Ads on tv? Never saw it. Click your adsense? Not likely unless I do it intentionally to support ya :)

I reckon the best advertising is when you don’t know it is. That guy in that movie uses a mac? Cool. Oh what, the studio got paid for him to use a mac? Fantastic, it’s 99% transparent and it’ll probably work. Reading a flattering review of a product in a newspaper, did they pay for it? Good on them if they did, it works ;)

Great post on a very interesting topic. I agree that many advertisers are not as “polished” with their ads as you might think. It’s hard to say where the blame falls with the Yale ad. The bottom line for me is that it is a pure reflection on the advertiser, because that is whose brand is being displayed. Only the advertiser knows who the ad agency was who developed their creative and can probably point the finger in that direction, fire them, and hire a new firm. However, the damage has already been done. It’s hard to quantify the damage to the brand for a sloppy ad, but it’s definitely there. The blame is on quality control has to be the advertiser’s responsibility because nobody will watch out for your brand like you will. It’s clearly better to hold off rushing the creative to get a good ad price than than rush it and have it look like the above…

This looks suspiciously like one of these problems that vex publishers. All looks fine on the final impositions (electronic proofs), then, bam, something screws up at the last minute, either a file reversion or technical glitch as the final images are sent for the printing press. I know. It has happened to me in our printed regional construction publications. When we see stuff like this, we contact our clients proactively and offer a make-good or some other adjustment to the pricing.

Of course, we don’t charge more than $5,000 for a 1/8 page ad. kSee the rate card here: http://www.venturedirect.com/pdf/Inc_Marketplace07.pdf

At these rates, of course, some addiitional production/press checking — including careful review of the pages on the press and a press stop if necessary — are appropriate, and for this, both Inc. and Venture Direct should review their procedures.

Ha! I noticed the very same thing! I even spent time mentally criticizing the first advertiser I saw for doing such a terrible job submitting a logo. Only after that, though, did I realize that all the logos were bad.

Somebody’s getting a flogging over this, I can guarantee you. You don’t spent that kind of money to look like an idiot.

Not sure who’s to blame there but I would point the finger at the publisher. While it’s not the press guys job to check every page, it is someones job (at the publisher) to assure that all ads submitted are done so in a high-res format; if you don’t meet the requirements the ad doesn’t run. If they still want to see the revenue from the sale, bill the client and give them space in the next issue (if they meet the requirements).

I ran an advert in a local paper in the business section once… they stuffed it up…. I got a free advert and some editorial for it in the next issue. which one do you think people remembered, yep the crapy one!