Entertainment For Lively Minds
Selective With The Truth
Posted by Davy H on 14 October 2009 - 12:33pm.
Have any other readers noticed the fabulously selective use of James Medd's review of the new Hope Sandoval & The Warm Inventions album (p.95 November issue) in the ad for the same on p.60?
Our James writes that the track 'Trouble' is "utterly magnificent" but "sadly...the only truly magic moment on this album" and goes on to give the whole caboodle a fairly lukewarm review.
But the ad screeches that the album is - "Utterly magnificent" - The Word.
This sort of thing used to be widespread in theatrical promotions, but has now, I see, been banned - http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/stage/....
Tut tut, and indeed, tut.
- More from Davy H.
- Login or register to post comments
-
They could also have run with-
"...truly magic..." - The Word.
I feel a bit sorry for Ms.Sandoval - the only decent track on the album (allegedly) is the one The Word gave away free on their CD. Who's gonna buy it now? Can't blame the publicity chaps for being selective with the quote - it's a dog eat dog world out there.
"selective with the quote"?
Oh, you mean "lying".
I was mirroring the language
used by the OP.
And my tongue was in my cheek.
(Muffled sound) thads
wad I thawd.
OK
And, actually - is lying always a bad thing?
I expect advertisers to lie to me.
Pretty good tactic.
But lying is always bad, all the same. Even when it's done for the right reasons. Which it isn't when done by advertisers. :)
No doubt.
This website's turning into the Moral Maze lately!
How about the answer to your partner asking 'Do these trousers make me look fat?' - Could be a male, could be a female - I'm not casting sexist aspersions here - I've asked my GLW things like that a few times - sometimes a little white lie is kinder than the truth...
But you are right - advertisers can be the spawn of Satan, allegedly, sometimes, usually. (But I'm sure some of them must be nice, honest people... there might even be some Word bloggers who work in advertising, I don't mean you... Have I covered it?)
Why, my dear - your posting
Why, my dear - your posting is absolutely *beautiful* today
(*doffs a gentlemanly hat*)
Oh sir, you are too kind.
*Blushes behind delicately waving fan*
I am a lawyer working for a wealthy Nigerian businessman
who needs to move a large quantity of money out of the country. I have been charged with making suitable arrangements via a UK based bank account, and you have been recommended as an honest person through which to move the funds. You will be paid a commission of 25% of the monies for your help in this matter. The total funds involved are in the region of $18 million US. Please reply to this message to indicate that you are willing to help in this matter, by sending me a goodwill deposit of $100 US, wired to the account details given below:
Sort Code: 40-84-31 Account Number: 1534 2236 Name: Angel P. Mbantu
I will then promptly arrange transfer of all $18 million US to your account, for you to in turn transfer to a third account, yet to be specified. Please include your account details in your reply. I look forward to hearing from you.
Angel!
How are you old chap!
Fancy seeing you here.
The money is on the way.
A consumer champion writes
Regardless of why they might want to do it, isn't it illegal?
And doesn't the fact that they ran the ad in the same magazine that provided the (mis)quote make it worse somehow? Is The Word in fact colluding in an illegal act? Or does no one check the ads before they are printed? Shall I call the cops? Or do I not care that much as I wasn't going to buy it anyway?
Never mind “checking the ads”
Presumably the advertiser was given a preview of the review, or at least an appropriate “pull quote”.
Not that I’m bothered too much about this sort of thing. Business is business. And a magazine like The Word is to some extent “in it together” with record companies, or at least has to work with them in a reasonably co-operative fashion. Surely the fact that the Word has run a sniffy review despite being given a) a free track and b) some ad revenue suggests an admirable degree of editorial integrity and independence.
Plus, as this very thread proves,
the massive is perfectly capable of operating its own Bullshitometer.
Checking ads
Time factors mean that ain't always a possiblity, as I found to my chagrin during my days on a local rag. The splash headline was along the lines of Tragic Teen Hangs Himself whilst an ad for a furnishings store which ran directly below the story featured the legend 'Is It Curtains For You Too?' Complaints? Crikey, we 'ad 'em.....
It's a selective quote from one person
While Utterly Magnificent may apply to one track as far as that reviewer is concerned, Utterly Magnificent could apply to the whole album for someone else. Unlikely, but possible.
Would anyone buy an album on the strength of a quote pasted into an advert?
Happily, yes
It's still bloody bare-faced cheek though isn't it? Harrumph.
Er...sorry
That was a reply to Vulpes, not Carl.
Hmm..
Sorry, I don't know about such things, but is it customary for magazines to give advertisers a heads-up on its reviews prior to publication then?
Must make for some interesting conversations between the advertising sales department and the reviews editor, I imagine.
No
But if a prospective advertiser asks to see a review ahead of publication, they may well be shown it - after all, it's most likely that an ad will be placed in the same issue as the album is reviewed, and the advertiser will be keen to find quotes that might help sell it. If publishers didn't share that info, the advertiser wouldn't have that "ammo". And without that, then there might not be an ad.
If they then use the quote out of context, then obviously that's not ideal for us, but there's not much we can do about it - the first we see of the ads is when we get the magazine back from the printers.
And as Richard suggests above, any genuine "collusion" would probably result in a good review for the album in question, not a distinctly lukewarm one.
My remark about collusion
referred to the illegal(?) act of misrepresentation that occurred when the ad was produced - by publishing something illegal are you not party to the act that breaches the law?
And as for not seeing the ads ahead of publication, is that not a disaster waiting to happen? So I could place an ad that said the BNP were great, RT was a twunt and Kate Bush eat babies for lunch and it would get printed?
Great! How much is a quarter-page, inside right, four-colour?
About twelve hundred quid if I'm reading the rate card right.
.
Too rich
for my blood.
Let's have a whip round!
Could be fun. I've never seen the inside of a High Court Judge's chamber. Oooo-er missus. Fnarr etc.
Well...
There's nothing illegal about it as far as I know. But as I said, it's certainly not ideal.
As for the "we", what I meant was the editorial team doesn't see the advertisements, even though others do - Mark, Andrew and Kate won't proofread the ads, just as the advertising team doesn't approve the editorial.
In the mean time, if you want to place an ad, get in touch with Juliet. She'll look after you.
This is meant in the spirit of humorous but genuine enquiry
Why isn't it illegal to do it in print ads but it is in theatre ads?
Does anyone know?
Actually, I think you'll find...
It has been illegal since last year, under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, brought in to comply with EU's Unfair Commercial Practices Directive.
The practice also contravenes the Advertising Standards Authority's CAP Code for non-broadcast advertising, so someone at your end might want to have a quiet word with the agency who bought the space.
(I used to be a copywriter and - despite advertising's reputation - such tacky punter-hoodwinking tactics are generally deplored within the industry too, not just by consumers.)
Grey area
The way I read the query was that it was about the publishing of the ad, which the same law accepts is a different matter, simply because no publisher can be be expected to fact-check submissions. Otherwise, I'm in full agreement. It is tacky. Heads will roll, etc.
Nice first post
Fancy seeing you here ol' chap
Mad Magazine
When I was a spotty youth, I remember reading a Mad Magazine spoof on theatre advertising, and it contained similar specimens; as the cliche goes, there's nothing new under the sun...
I don't know about you, but I take everything I read in adverts with a hefty shovelful of salt. And much of what I read elsewhere in any given publication. You can't be too careful.
(*checks mantraps, ammo and tinned supplies*)
When Jon Ronson wrote a film review column for Select
he talked about this practice, and put a phrase something like 'a power-packed actionhouse of a movie' in every review for that month.
I wish I could remeber the specific film, but low and behold, one of the releases took the quote out of his otherwise less than complimentary review and used it on their posters..