Yesterday, the Times dissected the state of Conde Nast's ad sales, concluding that only magazines that "cast a wider net" in terms of who they allow to advertise in their publication are doing well right now, but that Conde's long-standing position of never negotiating their prices with advertisers may turn out to be a good long-term plan and "a fair approach to pricing". Meanwhile, the International Herald Tribune reports that Conde Nast has been diversifying (and thereby reinforcing) their advertiser base by actually creating campaigns themselves, like the ones they did for LG, Lexus, Grey Goose and Dillard's, via "in-store events, parties and television programs," during 2008. By creating these ad campaigns, Conde's masterminded a few things: 1. They demand that all campaigns created in-house, are also only published in-house. So, In Style, owned by Time Inc, will never have one of the ads created by Conde Nast Media Group - unlike Vogue, Lucky or Allure, all published by Conde. 2. Since they're already guaranteeing ad space in their magazine and website real estate for these advertisers by making their campaigns, they also create the campaigns at relatively low costs, which is appealing to both the advertisers and to Conde Nast - basically, they've invented a system in which they spend a little (in making the campaigns,) yet guarantee a lot (the ad revenue, exclusivity, the luxury of not having to go "down-market" with their advertiser base) in return. This, in addition to recent news that Conde would be making many more dollars through more online video content, makes us think that Conde may not be faring as badly as people think, despite recent issues - After all, the chief marketing officer of LG did say, "At the end of 2009, we potentially will have spent more with Conde Nast versus a year ago." Which, in this environment, is pretty impressive, no?
Yesterday, the Times dissected the state of Conde Nast's ad sales, concluding that only magazines that "cast a wider net" in terms of who they allow t