Wanted to post this perspective last week, but it seemed a bit disrespectful on Memorial Day.
Adweek is completing the second month since relaunching as The Voice of Media. It would be more appropriate to call it The Voice of Mediocrity. Or maybe just call its time of death already.
There has been little progress from the initial kickoff, and the issues MultiCultClassics originally spotlighted have only gotten worse. Granted, no one has asked for this blog’s opinion, but other sources have criticized the degradation as well.
Sadly, Adweek reflects the industry on certain abstract levels. Like many advertising agencies, the publication has fallen victim to mergers and acquisitions that led to cost-cutting maneuvers, staff reorganizations and layoffs—essentially rooted in corporate ignorance and arrogance. Additionally, the people brought in to lead the revolution are outsiders with questionable credentials. Mirroring major Madison Avenue shops, the end result at Adweek is a disjointed mess devoid of distinction, discipline and direction.
Michael Wolff might be a nice guy, and he’s possibly even intelligent in specific areas of media. In his opening column, Wolff revealed his father owned and operated an advertising agency. But like the nepotism so prevalent in the business, blood relations don’t equate to being qualified. In other words, the son of an adman may not be the best choice to run a trade journal. Why, it’s akin to having a former wire shopping basket manufacturer overseeing a global advertising network. Worst of all, Wolff doesn’t appear to be legitimately interested in the industry. He’s a stark contrast to the folks at Advertising Age—or Adweek scribes of the past—who have shown an honest passion for the ad world.
Here’s a list of old, new and enhanced gripes regarding the 2011 Adweek:
• The large-type headers and intros are clumsy. Don’t force readers to click through multiple pages to read a story—especially if the story is not worth reading. It’s bad user experience. Additionally, the big bylines with writer portraits are silly and narcissistic. It might look OK in the magazine version. However, it’s dumb and self-absorbed when the writers are nobodies. This ain’t The New Yorker, Rolling Stone or Sports Illustrated, where nationally-recognized columnists convene.
• Right now, AdFreak is the main draw. In fact, MultiCultClassics once said, “The New Adweek is the Old AdFreak.” There must be a better way to bridge the two entities. Not sure what the answer is, but it’s embarrassing that the general publication’s content is far less compelling than the joke-filled stuff.
• The New Adweek is the Current AgencySpy. A few years ago, Adweek proceeded to monitor comment threads, deleting the barbs of obscene and negative trolls. That effort has been abandoned, as evidenced by the ugliness generated for a racist Psychology Today story (and what the hell was this piece doing on the site anyway?). Aspiring to AgencySpy standards is not a good plan.
• The fresh design lacks substance. Like too much of what is pouring out of Madison Avenue these days, Adweek offers slick art direction with so-so copy and zero concepts. There is an appalling emptiness here. Plus, the visual embellishments are not that cool.
• Hire better writers. Too many Adweek veterans bailed out or were terminated. MultiCultClassics is not sold on the writers who shifted from Mediaweek and Brandweek. Andrew McMains is decent. Sorry, but others are forgettable—or just plain terrible.
Wolff bragged that the revamped publication is “not your father’s trade magazine.” Yeah, but what the fuck is it? A poor man’s Esquire? A Vanity Fair wannabe? As a challenger brand, there must be a unique position to justify the franchise’s existence. It’s time for Adweek to define its image. This is one area where Wolff and his crew ought to emulate Madison Avenue. Hatch the proverbial Big Idea and go with it. Otherwise, Adweek risks following in the footsteps of advertising agencies that have vanished from the face of the earth.
No comments:
Post a Comment