Wow.

I mean . . .

Wow.

That's just kind of stunning from Marca.

Ech!

I can understand that sort of headline if the story is actually about that company (though I still would like it). But that, that's just repulsive -- do these people have no pride in their product at all? I wonder, what do the editors who put that page together think of it?

Maybe the designer got a free cell phone or a Ford truck.

Oops. I mean Toyota truck.
The Toyota ad might have been interesting inside the section, but not preceeding the real cover.

I can't even see that logo in the hed if the story was about the company. Advertising and news must be clearly separated, and this line-blurring does the industry no service. If you think your news source is a shill for (name your company), chances are you won't trust it. Trust is the covenant we have with readers... without it, we might as well surrender.

I asked this question at VizEds with no response – I know they didn't, but, what if NewTek DID pay DMN to place that logo in the graphic? Could it be justified as an advertiser paying for space on a page just as traditional (stack) ads are placed on a page? Just to be the devil's advocate here, as designers, we are designing the feel of the entire page and ads are almost always a part of those pages. Where is the line in the sand to be drawn?

Mark,

I think there's a pretty easy standard: no paid content in editorial.

In theory, I agree with Steve's standard: no paid content in editorial. But, let's be realistic for a second. Open up any American newspaper and check out all of the paid content. Heck, you don't even have to open up some papers 'cause it's right there at the bottom of Page One. Readers are great visual consumers. They can spot an ad from a mile away. Flip through any newspaper, and tell me a reader wouldn't be justified in wondering if all that money doesn't affect our ability to be impartial. Even though we try to seperate ads from editorial, the fact they appear in the same publication will always undermine the credibility of newspapers. But without ads, we wouldn't be able to fill our role as the vanguard of democracy.
Since we can never achieve a complete seperation between ads and editorial, the real question is how do we balance having ads in the paper, and maintaining credibility and impartiality?
I think these ads have gone too far, but I haven't seen any newspapers that have achieved a complete seperation between ads and editorial.

Let me take the cynical route: It won't matter one iota that Marca put a logo in a headline. Part and parcel of the same, U.S. Bad, everything else, good, criteria of late. Watch for the emulators. Pity, cause there's much good in Euro papers to emulate. NOT this though.

Nick,

I think you can build around advertising without having it IN the editorial content. We make those separations all the time with rules, styles and explicit labels which say "advertising." We achieve that separation all the time.

Steve, I totally agree that through the use of visual tools and labels, we are able to clearly distinguish ad content from editorial content. I think that in many cases readers are savvy enough to make these distinctions on there own anyway, but a little reinforcement on our end can't hurt.

Let me put my question differently: is a rule line, label or white space a convinving enough demonstration of our objectivity?

Or, could accepting money to publish a message that is promotional and biased by nature give the APPEARANCE to our readers that we may not be totally impartial — no matter how clearly we distinguish ads from editorial content?

Good or bad idea...So, Napoleon say: money money money... why not? or dilemma?

The incorporation of Movistar's logo in the headline is very bad.
The limits between information and advertising must be clear.
I have criticized them hardly in my blog: www.elmanipulador.blogspot.com

It's an old saying - "Newspapers are ads with stories printed on them." It is clearly not the other way around no matter what the journalists would LIKE it to be.

These extreme examples just reinforce who truly wears the pants - and sorry, editors, it is not you.

i checked out the aforementioned www.elmanipulador.blogspot.com but the comments were in spanish. i ran them through a translator but that didn't shed much light, although it produced the amusing phrase: "This has transformed to the sportsmen into very expensive men sandwich." i will say that both of these are very disturbing examples of an increasingly harsh advertising landscape, but i'm going to try and get some clarity from someone at marca before commenting further... although i'm hard-pressed to think what they might say that would make this feel less egregious. but i've met some of the designers and design managers there and have a lot of respect for what they do. so i'd like to hear exactly what this is and how it came about.

as far as the back and forth discussion about the separation between ads and news: i think that separation is vital and i think everything we do to keep that clarity for readers is very important. i agree with newsdesigner that while i don't like front-page ads, it's really personal taste... as long as they are clearly identifiable i can hold my nose and get past them. but ads that look like ads haven't ever really been the problem. we've all had discussions with ad departments either setting up rules about the fonts that can be used in advertorials or about doing something more than a 6pt. line saying "ADVERTISEMENT." and it wasn't all that long ago that many of our papers were doing what were, in some places, called "progress editions." the concept was simple: buy an ad and we'll write a story about you and how you're contributing to the good and growth of this community. we certainly lost our separation and objectivity in those circumstances. there may be some of those still being published. but today, it's a little more insidious, less obvious. sometimes it's a policy that no bad reviews are published so as not to offend advertisers. or "the best of (your town here)" issues that tout the best pizza, best breakfast, etc. and then, strangely, there's an ad for Late Nite Pie and The Yolk's On You one page later. yes, most of the time the places are chosen independently and the ad department sells later, but it’s not always that clean and the appearance remains that there’s some sort of quid pro quo. i'm sure there are other ways some of our papers fuzz that line, in small and big ways (the Staples Center/LAT Magazine debacle is still quite instructive around here).

i can vaguely remember someone in the ad department at a previous paper asking if we'd consider running an island ad in business agate that broke into the agate itself and we said no. thankfully we still could. apparently at the australian "no" was not an option.

Well said. The real shame: "No" really is becoming less of an option in these matters, esp. with island ads, intrusive earlugs, etc.

I think people are getting a bit too outraged about this. Does anyone know for sure that Marca was paid to use the logo? Or do they sponsor the team that is being featured? They wouldn't be the first to use a coroporate logo in a headline.We give free advertising every day when referring to the Outback Bowl or Comerica Park. At least this kind of stuff is very blatant and everyone can take it for what it is - and ad. To me, it's much worse to have paid 'advertorials' pretending to be news stories.

Dave,

Barcelona (the players on the cover are all in Barca jerseys) doesn't have a corporate sponsorship (although they are in discussions to do it for the first time next season). The main headline is "The Fear" and references the upcoming match with hated rivals Real Madrid.

Basically, imagine putting a logo in a head in the buildup to an end of the season Yankees/Red Sox series where the outcome would determine the division winner.

Steve:

That is pretty lame, then.

But what is the point? The truck ad at least makes sense from an advertising standpoint, but how is sticking a corporate logo in a headline going to sell more cellphones?

I do think newspaper editorial departments have to be more open to new kinds of advertising, though. Magazines have intrusive ads and other gimmicks all the time and it doesn't diminish the content. When you're upfront about people don't care. It's when you try to fool them and they find out that your credibility is ruined.

Dave,
The M logo is for Movistar a brand new name for the new brand from Telefonica Moviles. So they basically want the greatest possible exhibition of their identity. Stick it on the front page with all those players and it'l visually stick on in every readers mind. So its nothing to do with whether they are the corporate sponsors etc etc. They've just identified a slot where they'l get better exposure and higher retention in readers minds.

I don't think it is the job of the editorial dept to be more open to adverts. As a newspaper designer I have a daily struggle to differentiate ad from editorial and even though I can think of atleast 5 innovative ways to rake in the ad moolah i am not going to do that because my primary responsibility is to my reader and not my advertiser. Lets as designers be very clear about that. Lets face it the only reason adverstisers get away with what they want even in leading papers like Marca is because newspapers today have this defeateist attitude about themselves, perpetually grovelling b4 corporates for ads. We've created our own frankenstein by giving in too often.

Dave,
The M logo is for Movistar a brand new name for the new brand from Telefonica Moviles. So they basically want the greatest possible exhibition of their identity. Stick it on the front page with all those players and it'l visually stick on in every readers mind. So its nothing to do with whether they are the corporate sponsors etc etc. They've just identified a slot where they'l get better exposure and higher retention in readers minds.

I don't think it is the job of the editorial dept to be more open to adverts. As a newspaper designer I have a daily struggle to differentiate ad from editorial and even though I can think of atleast 5 innovative ways to rake in the ad moolah i am not going to do that because my primary responsibility is to my reader and not my advertiser. Lets as designers be very clear about that. Lets face it the only reason adverstisers get away with what they want even in leading papers like Marca is because newspapers today have this defeateist attitude about themselves, perpetually grovelling b4 corporates for ads. We've created our own frankenstein by giving in too often.