I'm of the persuasion that adverts are hugely annoying when they spread into the article's space. I'm perfectly happy for them to remain in their little boxes where they can be easily ignored, but when they start spreading out i have issues.

__
CK

I don't mind the first two so much. Well, I guess the first one creates annoying line breaks, but at least at first glance it's not horrifying. The one with the van, though, yikes. Talk about odd space to have to fill. It just looks bad and there's no way to make it look good, I guess.

And the last example is the scariest thing I've ever seen. :)

This is the work of the Devil!

Hey Ad reps: How about working on selling the spaces you already have?

Whenever the phone rang and it was someone in Ad Art or Marketing asking for fonts and mastheads, it always made me shudder. And when asked why they needed them it was always "we're just trying out some new looks".

And then those 'new looks' would be on the editor's wall a month later for some new initiative meeting.

They don't call them Ad Wizards for nothing.

this is common practice at the AJC .... we have 'em (we call 'em "dynamic ads") a few times each week.

I'm wondering about the protocal for the Nashville Symphony ad. Was the news designer required to run around the cutouts. They could have easily squared of the news content above the ad. Are ad departments passing out style guides along with each "dynamic" ad?

I don't want an advertiser or ad rep telling me how to design my page. That's like a casino bartender telling me how much I have to wager while playing video poker at the bar. (Yes, that has happened to me, and i wasn't happy about it either.)

i just threw up a little in my mouth.

Well, I guess our paper isn't the only one to start using the nasty ads. We've been upset about it and were told other papers are starting to use weird shapes. I didn't believe it. I guess you proved me wrong. :-(

I find it amusing that this group chides the few that refuse to be literally boxed in by the standards of newspaper layout.

First, advertising dollars pay nearly 100% of each designer's salary. Don't ya think that maybe, just maybe, they deserve a little more consideration than being shunted off to " boxes where they can be easily ignored"?

To use a previous analogy, Ad reps are waiters for the customers, and designers are bartenders making the drinks, and if the customer wants an umbrella and a maraschino cherry in their bloody mary, it's the bartender's responsibility to give it to them. And for some reason (I forget, maybe it's my work ethic) the bartender might want to do it with a smile instead of whining like Diego Rivera protecting his art.

Second, why do you think ad reps find it hard to sell the space they already have? Because newspapers are BORING. These new ads are an attempt to change that, to bring a little STYLE into a space dominated by little people stuck in their little boxes. Newspaper subscriptions aren't down simply because of the internet, bad writing, and bias, they've also gone down because of the rigid aesthetic thought, as shown by the designers kvetching here.

I urge all designers that gasp, "he's so wrong," to seriously evaluate how open minded they really are. Is it open minded to poo poo these renegades or rather to improve and expand their innovation?

I find the ads mostly...well, pretty bad, but I have to concur with Robert. Times change. Newspapers must change with it. This is an industry that clings very tightly to its traditions. Good or bad, that may be futile.

but editorial doesn't go creeping into ad space? so why is it ok the other way?

yeah, they pay our salaries but we can't just roll over and play dead. fugly is not innovating nor is it stylish. i'm all for innovative ads. i love ads and find a lot of them simply brilliant. but just stay on your side of the bed, y'know? there's gotta be more ways to be innovative that leave a nasty ass cutout for a designer to work around.

renegades? hardly. and i'd say i'm a tad open minded. =P

here's another analogy: separation between church and state.

martin, you stole my thought: editorial doesn't creep into ad space ... and we've learned never to even suggest "moving" an ad ... how rude!

i'm also a big fan of being bold and trying new things, but those ad examples make me want to stab my eyes with pointy things.

martin, you stole my thought: editorial doesn't creep into ad space ... and we've learned never to even suggest "moving" an ad ... how rude!

i'm also a big fan of being bold and trying new things, but those ad examples make me want to stab my eyes with pointy things.

Ad reps are waiters for the customers? Funny, I always thought our real customers were the readers. Ad intrusions only blur the line between edit and advertising. Not a good thing, and not very pretty, either. bd

Ok - I typed up a big rant and accidentally deleted it. It's probably for the best. But allow me to sum up.

Martin - "but editorial doesn't go creeping into ad space? so why is it ok the other way?" Because advertisers pay for their space. And if they are going to take space like this, I imagine they are going to pay significantly more.

bd - Yes, readers are our customers. As journalists we provide them a service they pay us for. But advertisers are ALSO our customers. We provide them space (which they pay for) so they can reach our readers. Is it really such a bad thing to try and please BOTH of them?

I'm not saying these ads are the answer. I think some of them are pretty bad. But there are some good ideas in there.

Who's to say editorial and advertising couldn't *GASP* work together to create an ad that breaks the boundaries in a way that we feel isn't confusing to the reader?

Instead of crapping on ideas that are a little crazy or different (which is what we often complain about the "word people" doing to us) why not offer up solutions or alternatives?

Circulation is down, and we're doing our best to combat it with quality journalism and marketing blitzes. In a lot of cases, advertising isn't doing a lot better. Why is it OK to try and find solutions for one of the problems but not the other?

And yes, that is an edited version of what I typed last time. :)

Now I really need that coffee.

i've said it before and i'll say it again — they can put a big ad right on my forehead if it'll save the jobs of the good people i'm privileged to come to work with every day and put out a newspaper. not to mention MY job.

Let's not get into an ad/ed fistfight. We're in this together. (Seriously.)

I'm an ed guy. I think we need snappier ads. There's nothing wrong with helping them draw the readers' eye.

Here's where ad and ed interests align: For readability's sake alone, we need to maintain conventions about where the ad-ink ends and the ed-ink begins. If we don't follow some basic rules, readers will find it impossible to quickly navigate our product. To my eye, we jeopardize readability when ads jag into the editorial text. To my eye, the Honda and Hummer ads keep the lines clear; the Nashville Symphony and Chevy ads don't.

With due respect to our ad-side friends, we shouldn't let the short-term hunger to meet a sales target endanger the formula that keeps us all fed.

"For readability's sake alone, we need to maintain conventions about where the ad-ink ends and the ed-ink begins."

That sounds like a great starting point to me. Set boundaries. Most of us wouldn't launch a new section without creating a style guide to tell people how to do it correctly. Why wouldn't we do the same with a new advertising protocol?

Well, around the Hyundai minivan ad, I wonder how anyone would feel about filling that space under the liftgate with a stick of type. I imagine the intent was to more closely wrap news type around the parts of the van that jut out.

I don't mind these ads, as long as the shape is practical to work with. We started running a triangular ad in the Detroit papers recently, and it was a little more difficult to work around, but when you get used to it, it's not so bad.

Seems there's some concern about defining where the ad ends and the news starts, but I tend to think readers aren't that dumb. When the ad starts mimicking news type, however, that's a line crossed. I think in the examples shown, you know what's an ad and what isn't. And in all but the sports example shown, the ads are well-designed and well-executed.

One of my problems with ads encroaching in new ways into news hole is that the ads need to be aesthetically pleasing. When Podunkville Ford-Mercury decides on an oddly-shaped ad, and it's chock full of yellow starbursts, Multi-Ad Creator Gone Wild and Stupid Photoshop Tricks, it just makes the whole damn page an unwelcome, unreadable eyesore. I think those are the situations we need to make unwelcome.

Also, we need to have design systems that are more flexible with these new shapes... or the existing ones need to be made more flexible.

I work for the paper in the last design and let me tell you, that was NEVER in the paper, nor would it ever be.

The only thing that actually made it was the top story and photo, the rest of that mess was not by our doing and was made up (there is no boundries..what is that all about?) Like it stated, it is not a real page.

This is definitely NOT a new idea. Check out page 49 of "Newspaper Design: An Illustrated Guide to Layout" published in 1973 by Harold Evans.

不错的广告,在中国很少

Just wondering who pays your salaries...? Oh that's right it's ad revenue...

precariousness gnome transcendent heavens backaches forgiveness ticked?... Thanks!!!

tanker calumny.Haberman Mohammed lackey .

clay cuttings?banded orators telegram detectably avoiders

clay cuttings?banded orators telegram detectably avoiders

sketch:mythologies abbreviations Joanne!stake?love!fingerprints:assimilate!overseeing