Harvey Norman must have gone on a spending spree. The adverts also appear on the front covers of New Idea & Womans Day this week.
probably got a good deal to cover across multiple magazines. They are all under one company these days.
5 Likes
Also saw it on Take 5 magazine. The four magazines didn’t look too good on the magazine rack in the supermarket where you can only see the tops of the magazines. All four looked the same with the Harvey Norman advert dominating and you could only see half the logo of the magazine below it. I wonder if sales will be affected as a result.
3 Likes
Certainly wouldn’t be doing them any favours.
this is why magazines traditionally have guarded their mastheads and spend fortunes to make theirs stand out. In a lot of cases they are the only visible part of the magazine on the newsstands. But like newspapers and TV networks have done, they seem to be happy to whore out their brands for a short term $ fix.
If they put the ads at the bottom of the cover at least it’s less intrusive.
2 Likes
I thought that too. I’m still really surprised that these magazines agreed to do it. Must have involved big bucks.
ETA: Who Weekly had the advert too, later in the week.
1 Like
It’s the Harvey Norman magazine again this week and it’s a double whammy with Home and Away also the cover story.
OFFS
1 Like
I know, imagine a dying business model having to pay its bills
Harvey Norman and Home and Away again? Sigh.
Sure, have ads throughout the mag, but not on the cover two weeks in a row!
1 Like
they could put the ads at the bottom of the cover, at least. Surely the magazine will lose retail sales as its masthead literally disappears from public view.
3 Likes
When I was at Woolworths this morning it was odd seeing the same header on a few magazines. Though at first glance they all appeared to be the same publication as they were on the magazine rack and the title on the covers were barely visible from behind the magazines in front.
The same complaints about Home and Away every week, they need to make money desperately. I get your argument but they aren’t long for this world as it is, they don’t have many options.
Who says? It’s been mentioned here a number of times that TV Week is one of the most profitable magazines and is likely to be around for a lot longer than others.
As for Home and Away constantly being on the cover, we can only assume those editions sell more. They have never confirmed or denied it. But it is possible that those who produce it are just obsessed with that show over all others.
It’s not a school newspaper, all decisions are made for commercial purposes, in regards to the sales, I’d like to see a citation but the fact it’s owners keep going broke is never a good sign.
1 Like
plus I imagine Seven has a very willing Publicity office happy to flood TV Week with good (and free) promotional content
And it has been suggested in the past that H&A tends to get a lot of coverage as it is one of the few shows that can be relied on to air as scheduled. So many other TV schedule changes happen at a moment’s notice that it can render a front cover obsolete before it goes on sale.
6 Likes
Most media companies write off their “losses” and assets as dodge taxes. Not unusual for a publishing company to start up a new magazine and the shut it down soon after as a tax write-off. Practically every radio, television and publication company has “gone broke” or is on the brink of “going broke”. They’ve always been in debt to their eyeballs and continue to borrow.
If we used that sort of thinking then most of free to air television, commercial radio stations, all newspapers and magazines “aren’t long for this world” either.
1 Like
The bolded bit is true though. I suspect that in the next decade, there’ll be loads of media companies (even relatively large ones) which will either have to merge with others or die.
Depends how diversified they are, if it’s just a broadcast network, then yes it’s on borrowed time. But Bauer Australia did go completely under, it wasn’t just a write off. TV Week will be around a while yet, my point remains it needs to sell copies and make money on an ever shrinking advertising market. It’s doing those things by it’s actions .
1 Like
Well, we know Bauer came into Australia and tried to run the company in the same way they have run their European companies. when they found that didn’t work, they just shuttered titles rather than look at the business from an Australian point of view and run things differently.
Yes, we do all realise they need to sell copies and make money. That’s not in question. But it doesn’t mean they always make the right decisions and it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t question some of their dubious decisions.