Gannett's Republic has changed to a similar ad. Try http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/frontpages/Thu.pdf

I'll say this about the Mercury News: Not only is it one of the best designed papers around, but so is their advertising. Sure, we've all been wishing this day would never come. But leave it to San Jose to ensure a premium ad actually looks like a premium ad. I honestly don't think this compromises the design integrity at all.

It’s easy to say we dislike having advertisements on our section fronts. For years, journalists at most American papers have regarded covers as sacred places meant only for editorial coverage. But while our industry faces challenging economic times, we all understand that a transition into different ways of thinking (and different revenue sources) is necessary. This is a big change for the Mercury News, a change that will take some getting used to. But it won’t change our ability to deliver the type of high-impact visual journalism we’ve thrived on. It will just become a fact of life, at least until the next “new” thing come along.

And Thanks Bo. It helps that it's a nice looking ad.

I think Michael is right: We have to look for new revenue streams.

Those of us in newsrooms need to embrace the advent of cover advertising and work hard to set some standards. We did that with front page ads and our advertising folks were right there with us ... Now on those other section covers, well, we are at the mercy of these national ad campaigns.

The Home Depot ad on the sports cover is the same one the Boston Globe has been running for a few weeks now. You can see some examples in Brian Gross' NPD portfolio:

http://www.newspagedesigner.com/portfolios/portfolio1.php?UserID=754

Obtrusive ad on front of the San Jose Merc?
In the words of Monty Python: 'Luxury'
We Brit designers working for tabloid/compact papers face a working area of at least a fifth of the page being used for ads...not to mention the space used for masthead, plugs, index etc...
Bang a splash headline in and a byline and that's basically all...
We used to dream of ads...we had to cut down t'trees, make 'em into paper, design with our eyes plucked out...................

An ad on the front page of the Merc ... and yet it still looks better than half the front pages out there ...

The front page should not be for sale.
I would be more open to Ads on the front of sections if I knew the profit would be pumped back into the newsroom. That the increased revenue would build a better newspaper or online product, but it will not. And in the era of newspapers being driven to make 25-30% in order to SURVIVE I am dishearten that the great Merc had to go there. Keep in mind normal businesses models average 7% or so as a profit margin. This Wall Street greed mentality is pushing journalism to a breaking point.

To sum it up words from Walter Cronkite's keynote address at Columbia University last week:
"In this information age and the very complicated world in which we live today, the need for high-quality reporting is greater than ever. It's not just the journalist's job at risk here. It's American democracy. It is freedom. Consolidation and cost cutting may be good for the bottom line in the short term but that isn't necessarily good for the country or the health of the news business in the long term."

Matt good luck controlling the look of the ads. I'm sure this challenge will be coming my way soon enough.

My only hope is that the discussions go beyond this:

Ad director: "We need to generate more revenue."

Employee: "Well, we could sell the front page. It's a big piece of real estate nobody's using."

Ad director: "Great idea. Next topic ..."

... If section front ads are actually generating revenue that's saving jobs and moving the profit margins back to sacred territory, then by all means, they're working.

... But don't lay that on the people whose papers sport cover ads who were STILL laid off in 2006.

...

Revenue generation IS INDEED everyone's problem. Editorial and advertising are under the same crosshairs. But, too often, advertising decisions are still being made on the advertising floor, and editorial decisions on the editorial floor, with no communication or collaboration.

If I knew that editorial and advertising were truly working together, and that these front ads are truly innovative and will generate the revenue that is implied when it is stated, "Don't complain. These ads put food on your table," the idea would get nothing but support from me.

If it's a behind-closed-doors, unilateral decision of the "well throw something ELSE against the wall and hope it sticks" mentality, then it's a waste.

First, I have to agree with Bonita, the Merc did a fantastic job of disguising that ad. The page was still powerful and engaging.

Yet, I wonder what this is getting at. The division between editorial and advertising is getting eerily close. I am not saying there shouldn't be collaboration. There should, especially between marketing and content. But, that content is supposed to be sacred.

For example, with that Home Depot ad, lets say Tony Stewart is arrested for DUI or assaults someone in the winner circle and is dragged off in handcuffs with his Home Depot decor still on. That runs huge on the cover, and there is that ad down below. Do you lose that advertiser? Do readers know the difference? Does it look like the newspaper supports Home Depot and anyone associated with that organization?

Honestly, we work for NEWSpapers. Ads pay our salaries, no doubt. But, without the news, the ads wouldn't exist. Some would say vice versa, but just look at some upstart Web sites. They thrive on their content, not advertising.

Again, the folks at the Merc handled this beautifully. I just think Pandora's box has been opened. What next? The New York Times? The L.A. Times? Orlando? Dallas? Norfolk?

At what point do we become sell outs? Or do we just need to get over ourselves and worry about keeping the business alive, at whatever expense?

It seems as though, in a field on brilliant people, there has to be a better way to make money. And, instead of 25-30 percent profit, maybe being OK with 15-20 would keep some integrity intact.

I realize that many top-notch American newspapers have held out on front page ads, but a lot of papers around the world have been doing this for a long time.

The Guardian, widely lauded for both its edgy content and fantastic design, has an ad on its front page many days.

Some of the best papers in the world have front-of-cover advertising, with Boston and Dallas running many of the same ads we have now begun on our sports cover at the Merc.

And the WSJ, Arizona Republic, Indy Star, the Detroit papers and myriad others in the U.S. have been putting ads on the front page for some time now.

I wonder why we have come to believe this crosses a line for print in America? I know it's one of those things that gets people upset ... And I will readily admit that I don't, by any means, love it myself.

But why do we not shudder in the same way at online advertising nearby the news? Check nytimes.com right now and look at the ads littered over its online front page. Heck, some are even in the masthead!

Just questions for y'all ... Please discuss.

Those are excellent points, Matt. nytimes.com is pretty blatant and the others preceeded the Merc in doing this.

I think the reason why I reacted the way I did is because the Merc was one of the last to hold its ground. The Gannett chain already has these ads, but mostly as strip ads across the bottom, much like the Home Depot ad on the Sports cover. Those separate news content and advertising a bit better.

As for the 2x5 on the front, it begins to feel like news content. I have never liked the WSJ and the ad they have. Yet, they are highly successful. As has the Gannett chain.

For me, it is the principle of the idea. When will it stop? Will those ads grow larger? Will that jewelry store make an editorial statement in their ad when the 49ers make the Super Bowl and their owner loves the Niners? Is that appropriate?

When do we draw the line? Should there be a line? Should the bottom line be making money?

At the Sun Journal, we have word ads at the bottom of the page. Very old school and a design nightmare. But, as Matt has stated already, we have made it work with great success.

So, maybe in the end run, as long as editorial has an equal say in what goes out there and is able to voice concern if ethical lines are being crossed, then maybe it isn't as bad as we think it is.

I just wonder, as an industry, if our profit margin expectations are just a bit high, and what is sacrificed to get there. In the Merc's case, obviously jobs were lost these past two years and the paper was sold...twice. It seems as though those putting out the paper are being sacrificed, instead of the owner's back pocket.

I'm sure that the editorial side will continue to have say over the content of advertising for both coverage and taste questions. We do now ... Most major papers have those guidelines, and the right to refuse ads for legitimate ethical reasons has to be the case.

Scroll down Mark's images links to the left to some of the most prestigious papers in the world to see who has front page advertising.

Globe and Mail. Check.
Le Devoir. Check.
Peru.21. Check.
The Guardian. Check.
International Herald Tribune. Check.
Marca. Check.
Dagens Nyheter. Check.

And, trust me, I can find far more than are not in that rail over there.

My point? We have to have a say in how the advertising and editorial sides work together, but we can't bury our heads in the sand and hope that some altruistic owners are going to magically take a 15 percent profit margin because some Web site or toothpaste maker does. Folks outside the U.S. began learning that long ago.

And, besides, that's not the reality that our industry has created. We have to live in reality, or as you suggested, Nick, create a new one that can drive financial success in new ways.

My view? If we want to return resources to the newsroom, we have to try to be partners in our success with the other people who are part of our business.

I honestly believe we succeed or fail together. The best businesses understand that the content, marketing and sales operations must work in concert.

And, yes, I said business. And, yes, newspapers are also a public trust. It's an essential conflict and you negotiate that reality each day. Trust me, we all do.

As for the Merc's financial issues? We're hardly unique in needing to return to our former money-making glory, that place where we could be blissfully oblivious to market conditions that are fundamentally shifting the landscape for how people actually, you know, want to get news and information.

See these examples:

* The entire Tribune Company.
* The Star-Tribune, which just helped McClatchy's tax bill and, I am betting, felt fairly abandoned in the end.
* Those old Knight Ridder papers that McClatchy couldn't afford to keep in the fold because our cost structures were too high.

The last time the Merc's profit margin was anywhere close to 30 percent was back in the heady tech boom, the cash cow of recruitment that was signaling our demise. Good thing we were selling so many classifieds way back then that we could afford to forget such a thing as front page advertising was even an option.

i don't think the section-front ad compromises our journalistic integrity, but it does represent the death of what used to be the guaranteed open page, and that's sad enough. the only people on the editorial side who will defend it are the folks whose papers have already given in; everybody else is thinking "thank god it's not my paper... yet."

oh, and what's with the comparison to nytimes.com? you can't compare print ad layout to online - that's apples and oranges. the ads on the nytimes.com homepage aren't any worse than any other news website. a more pertinent observation would have been that the printed NYT now occasionally strips ads on the bottom of the fronts of business, arts and some of the other feature sections. and i would note that the NYT has printed ads on A1 for years: those tiny little text messages down at the bottom. so, everything's relative.

1) I don't think it's the death knell of the guaranteed open page -- now the guaranteed open cover maybe. You can find other positions and do amazing things inside the paper, the sort of stuff that would make all those newspaper design judges who complain about the interior of American newspapers sit up and take notice!

2) You may be right that folks who "gave in" are defending cover ads. I know that Alan Jacobson has been actively advocating that designers embrace it and help drive the discussion for the last few years. Alan's view seems better to me than the "thank god it's not my paper ... yet" attitude, which feels like a less-active posture in helping shape the boundaries for the balance between advertising and editorial, the guidelines that might still create a positive reading experience.

3) The points about the print edition of The New York Times are correct and pertinent ... It is all relative. They "gave in" long ago.

4) The question about the online version of The Times (or any other paper) was out there to prompt discussion about why we feel so differently about online ads. I'd still like to hear from people on that topic and not just shut down the discussion because we think it's a false analogy. Maybe it is tough to think about because there is something incomparable about print and online (of course there is!), but people all over the news industry have been trying to see how print news organizations begin to migrate to an increasingly online world and I have begun to wonder how we include advertising (and other revenue streams) in that discussion more.

Matt makes some very good points, very good.

And, in reality, those profit margins will stay the same. I don't think I explained myself very well. I realize they won't change, just think it is unfortunate, that's all.

I think one reason why the Merc having an ad threw me is because it was one of the few left that didn't have one. It made it feel stronger. BUT, I think realizing that these ads could keep revenue, at least, consistent, then the staff they currently have may go untouched. That would fabulous, and we would all be better off for it. The Merc has led all of us, directly or indirectly.

As for online advertising, I don't think we should look at it differently, at all. The same cleanliness that most of us give on our covers should remain in tact on the Web site. Does it mean no ads? No. In a way, the homepage is like a cover plus it's jump pages. There are going to be ads somewhere. But, again, the content drives the site, which leads to clicks, which leads to advertising. In this particular case, I don't see it the other way around. I don't see advertising leading you to the content. That may change...

Just for full disclosure, I have been advocate that strip ads across the bottom of our section fronts would not be horrible. I have told our VP/Advertising as late as last December. And, just like Matt, the only thing that I asked is that if an ethical dilemma arose, that the departments could sit down at a table and talk.

Collaboration is what I am all about, and in order for this type of revenue to happen, it isn't a choice, but a requirement.

I agree with you, Nick: The profit margins are an unfortunate reality that we must all cope with, in the ways we can that will still help us do good journalism every day. I wish that the bar on the margin was not where it is set, but I do fear that's a train that has already left the station ...

For the record, though: It is different here than those places you hear about making 25 percent.

The Merc's owners (former and current) have accepted far below the industry average on profit since 2000, the last year the paper was making in double digits.

And our neighbors up the peninsula in San Francisco at the Chronicle have been actually posting losses for the last three years.

The Bay Area is a challenging market and we do our best to rise to that challenge. Thank goodness the tech community, to which our fortunes are so closely tied, appears to be surging again!

Sorry if I'm so glum.
And go ahead and call me a relic.

But the fact is newsrooms are being hit hard as resources are reduced to hit profit margins.
This trend will continue until family or individually owned newspapers become the norm. . .again.

People that truly believe there is something important about quality journalism other than the bottom line. Print/digital newsrooms are a public trust and they should be treated as such.

The trend toward unreasonable expectations from wall street has not only our jobs at risk but the heart of democracy.

I'm not surpised to see ads on fronts. I suggested this strategy months ago. And I'm not surprised to see these ads appear on a paper owned by Dean Singleton. Dean is a trend-setter. He was the first to implement web-width reduction more than a decade ago in response to rising newsprint costs.

Here's a link to the strategy I proposed: http://www.brasstacksdesign.com/

I'm with Matt on this. There are plenty of great newspapers that have front- and section-front advertising on them. Who cares?

The folks concerned with this should channel their passion into revitalizing their product, which as I type is dropping in relevance and circulation.

(See http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/columns/stopthepresses_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003541802)

Those of you upset by this should be thanking your publishers for finding new revenue streams while your traditional news report continues to flounder.

Don't like ads on section fronts? Then fight back by producing a better product. Look at papers in Europe, Central America and Australia for inspiration.

'The question is not whether the newspaper is dead, but whether it can be rescued from unreasonable demands.'

That's a quote from a recent piece in Harvard U.'s Nieman Reports about the state of the industry. (For the complete article: http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/06-4NRwinter/p91-0604-sims.html)

We can't bemoan section-front ads, not from where we stand right now... But how much more can we continue to diminish the reading experience before we devalue the entire "product" -- ads included?

Good points, Joe. In my opinion the entire "product" was diminished years ago, when it started becoming something you could go without.

At my paper, The Desert Sun in Palm Springs, CA (Gannett), we run ear Ads next to the section flags and our advertising department has been telling advertisers that we are open to doing ads in any shape they want. We've had a couple of inside 'L' shaped and one "U' shaped ads run already. Recently, we experimented with running a spadia wrap that covered half of the cover for the front page and sports cover. A spadia is like a full broadsheet page cut in half. My take on the spadia is that it's nice that it doesn't take up real estate on the cover yet it does blanket it, pretty much killing the impact of the lead CP. The paper doesn't really have a face anymore. Subscribers won't care too much but the presence in the rack is compromised.

[@map/map_4g5_mordy.txt||5||p-1||1|| @]