Giuliani get's same NYT Add rate as MoveOn

[akaoni 0]

It appears that last week's little brouhaha was much adieu about nothing. From Advertising Age:

 

NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- Rudy Giuliani got a lot of attention yesterday when he attacked The New York Times for giving MoveOn.org what he called sweetheart pricing on the group's "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" ad. Mr. Giuliani expertly rode the right-wing wave of anger over what appeared to be a $65,000 bargain -- a $116,000 discount off the rate card.

 

[...]

 

But at the end of the week, when his campaign took out an ad in the Times advocating the opposite point of view, Giuliani paid the going rate for a full-page standby ad in the Times: $65,000.

 

It appears that the $65,000 rate for advertising was not a partisan discount as has been asserted here and elsewhere, but rather was a standard rate given to advertising which was not guarenteed to run. That didn't stop Giuliani's apparently hypocritical criticism of the NYT. The article continues:

 

Standby basis

But MoveOn bought its ad on a "standby" basis, under which it can ask for a day and placement in the paper but doesn't get any guarantees. Standby pricing doesn't appear on the Times rate card -- but that kind of ad at a standby rate turns out to run about $65,000.

 

And that's what the Giuliani campaign paid as well, according to one person close to the Times, for its counter ad today berating MoveOn and, in turn, Hillary Clinton for refusing to denounce the "Betray Us" ad.

 

Of course we know the real reason for all this silliness...that's right, you guessed it: Publicity!

 

Rates not based on content

Catherine Mathis, a spokeswoman for the Times, said the paper does not set or adjust rates based on the political content of any ads. "The advertising department, they don't see the ad before the rate is quoted," she said. "There is an individual who is in charge of advertising acceptability, but our acceptance or rejection of an ad does not depend on whether it coincides with our editorial page's positions. There are many instances when we have published opinion advertisements that run counter to the stance we take on the editorial pages."

 

What all this really makes clear is that the Giuliani camp and MoveOn both know the value of public relations. The dust-up over the ad generated tons of media impressions for both sides, including press reports by not only the Post but also outlets including MSNBC.com, Reuters, Drudge, The Washington Post, USA Today and the Times itself.

 

Thank god being a publicity wh0re has no partisan boundries!

[wiffleball 4,790]

Yeah, the explanations I've heard make pretty good sense. - Or at least seem reasonable. - Not that the chickenhawks are ever going to bother with fact checking of course...

 

Still, I think it was an ad that shouldn't have been run. I put that more on 'move on' than anybody else.

[gocolts 300]

Your title of this thread is correct. Rudi is a flaming liberal.

[Uh-huh 0]

Your title of this thread is correct. Rudi is a flaming liberal.

 

Neocons = assdarts

 

[DanXIII 8]

Davebg will be interested in reading this. I know he was really concerned about this issue.

[Rude Rick 0]

Obviously the Slimes is posturing to look impartial, but the Demwits will never get that.

[Boz/BoFan 0]

Obviously the Slimes is posturing to look impartial, but the Demwits will never get that.

 

Forget to log off again? Busted.

[Angry White Male 0]

Obviously the Slimes is posturing to look impartial, but the Demwits will never get that.

You Da Man, RP!!!

[Boz/BoFan 0]

Standby basis

"But MoveOn bought its ad on a "standby" basis, under which it can ask for a day and placement in the paper but doesn't get any guarantees. Standby pricing doesn't appear on the Times rate card -- but that kind of ad at a standby rate turns out to run about $65,000."

 

Bullsh!t, that doesnt even exist. What they bought was a "floating" ad at a discount rate, "floating" meaning you dont get to decide the day the ad is run...hence the phenomenal $116,000.00 discount. What is at issue here is that the "random" day the Times chose to run the ad was the exact same day Petraeus gave his progress report. What a cowinkydink eh?

 

Anyone who denies the unfettered and proven bias of the Times is a troll alias, a liberal, or dumb as a box of phucking rocks......the last two being interchangeable.

[akaoni 0]

Standby basis

"But MoveOn bought its ad on a "standby" basis, under which it can ask for a day and placement in the paper but doesn't get any guarantees. Standby pricing doesn't appear on the Times rate card -- but that kind of ad at a standby rate turns out to run about $65,000."

 

Bullsh!t, that doesnt even exist. What they bought was a "floating" ad at a discount rate, "floating" meaning you dont get to decide the day the ad is run...hence the phenomenal $116,000.00 discount. What is at issue here is that the "random" day the Times chose to run the ad was the exact same day Petraeus gave his progress report. What a cowinkydink eh?

 

Anyone who denies the unfettered and proven bias of the Times is a troll alias, a liberal, or dumb as a box of phucking rocks......the last two being interchangeable.

 

Um, no. The complaint was that the NYT gave preferable rates to MoveOn. This has been shown to be demonstrablly false. MoveOn had the standby rate, the same as Giuliani. Now you want to shift the ground and say, no it wasn't about pricing, it was about placement, which of course is the new meme being spread about the conservative blogosphere now that their first complaint was shown to be BS. Again, I think that we need to look at the Giuliani ad, which was also printed in a timely fashion on the standby rate. Honestly, the notion that the NYT add department is operating under some kind of secret ideological order strikes me as paranoid at best.

 

As I stated above, this was always a tempest in a teapot. But that said, MoveOn and the Giuliani campaign have both done an excellent job using this non issue to generate some badly needed publicity.

[davebg 0]

Um, no. The complaint was that the NYT gave preferable rates to MoveOn. This has been shown to be demonstrablly false. MoveOn had the standby rate, the same as Giuliani. Now you want to shift the ground and say, no it wasn't about pricing, it was about placement, which of course is the new meme being spread about the conservative blogosphere now that their first complaint was shown to be BS. Again, I think that we need to look at the Giuliani ad, which was also printed in a timely fashion on the standby rate. Honestly, the notion that the NYT add department is operating under some kind of secret ideological order strikes me as paranoid at best.

 

As I stated above, this was always a tempest in a teapot. But that said, MoveOn and the Giuliani campaign have both done an excellent job using this non issue to generate some badly needed publicity.

I think that the NYT put itself in a position where it could not refuse Giuliani's request...at least not w/out losing credibility. While they were under no offical obligation to reveal their pricing, when your business relies upon your credibility and that credibility is called into question I think that transparancey is the only option.

 

Often it is not the fact that there is impropriety, but just the appearance of impropriety that can have a negative impact on a person or business.

 

In this case, there was no question that something appeared a little shady. Since these standby rates are not published anywhere in their rate card, it would seem that we may never know the truth for sure. Did the NYT give a discount to MoveOn and then extend the same deal to Giuliani in an attempt to cover their tracks or has this always been a valid rate? I can't say for sure, but regardless, I do give the NYT credit for applying the same rate to Giuliani as they did MoveOn.

[Snoopy1 0]

I think that the NYT put itself in a position where it could not refuse Giuliani's request...at least not w/out losing credibility. While they were under no offical obligation to reveal their pricing, when your business relies upon your credibility and that credibility is called into question I think that transparancey is the only option.

 

Often it is not the fact that there is impropriety, but just the appearance of impropriety that can have a negative impact on a person or business.

 

In this case, there was no question that something appeared a little shady. Since these standby rates are not published anywhere in their rate card, it would seem that we may never know the truth for sure. Did the NYT give a discount to MoveOn and then extend the same deal to Giuliani in an attempt to cover their tracks or has this always been a valid rate? I can't say for sure, but regardless, I do give the NYT credit for applying the same rate to Giuliani as they did MoveOn.

 

 

Jeebus...anything to continue the stink of "liberal media"

[heavy-set 39]

Your title of this thread is correct. Rudi is a flaming liberal.

goaway

[davebg 0]

Jeebus...anything to continue the stink of "liberal media"

Hmmm...let me see...

 

Nope, the words "liberal media" do not appear anywhere in my post.

[Snoopy1 0]

Hmmm...let me see...

 

Nope, the words "liberal media" do not appear anywhere in my post.

 

 

You're entire post is completely based on no knowledge at all, just casting baseless assumptions at the NYT.

 

I think that the NYT put itself in a position where it could not refuse Giuliani's request...at least not w/out losing credibility.

 

The assuption being that if they didn't offer the ad, then they are biased against conservatives.

 

In this case, there was no question that something appeared a little shady. Since these standby rates are not published anywhere in their rate card, it would seem that we may never know the truth for sure. Did the NYT give a discount to MoveOn and then extend the same deal to Giuliani in an attempt to cover their tracks or has this always been a valid rate?

 

More baseless and biased commentary from you. Oooh, a conspiracy to cover the tracks....

 

LOL, you don't need to have the words "liberal media" to know exactly that you are painting them with that brush, with no facts to support your position at all.

[davebg 0]

You're entire post is completely based on no knowledge at all, just casting baseless assumptions at the NYT.

The assuption being that if they didn't offer the ad, then they are biased against conservatives.

More baseless and biased commentary from you. Oooh, a conspiracy to cover the tracks....

 

LOL, you don't need to have the words "liberal media" to know exactly that you are painting them with that brush, with no facts to support your position at all.

Nice hack job. I really liked the part where you left out the part of my post where I say:

Often it is not the fact that there is impropriety, but just the appearance of impropriety that can have a negative impact on a person or business.

 

The NYT is in the credibility business. Their credibility is their single greatest asset. W/out it they are nothing.

 

Public perception can be impacted by proven bias or even the mere appearence of bias.

[Snoopy1 0]

Nice hack job. I really liked the part where you left out the part of my post where I say:

 

The NYT is in the credibility business. Their credibility is their single greatest asset. W/out it they are nothing.

 

Public perception can be impacted by proven bias or even the mere appearence of bias.

 

 

Oh, so the fock what if I left it out...oooh look Dave put in a quasi-disclaimer while still making baseless and knowledgeless assuptions...

 

Hack job!!!! You're entire post was a hack job designed to cast dispersions upon the stated reasons of the times.

[jerryskids 6,797]

Why would the NYT not publish these rates? Do they not want to sell them? Is this a standard practice in the publishing biz?

 

Rusty or anyone familiar this business, please chime in.

[Snoopy1 0]

Why would the NYT not publish these rates? Do they not want to sell them? Is this a standard practice in the publishing biz?

 

Rusty or anyone familiar this business, please chime in.

 

Can't answer for the publishing world, but in television advertising there are many off the card deals you can get.

 

Generally, TV stations don't have the largest sales staff, so they will sell air time in bulk to large ad agencies. If you were to look just at the card, you might pay full price for time, that if you knew to contact an agency could be largely discounted. There are other off the card rates too that I know, but none as large as that.

[jerryskids 6,797]

Can't answer for the publishing world, but in television advertising there are many off the card deals you can get.

 

Generally, TV stations don't have the largest sales staff, so they will sell air time in bulk to large ad agencies. If you were to look just at the card, you might pay full price for time, that if you knew to contact an agency could be largely discounted. There are other off the card rates too that I know, but none as large as that.

I can see where they might publish the "list" price for a guaranteed ad, in hopes that more people do that. But I'm guessing that most people who place such large ads are aware that this can be done.

 

Wouldn't it be funny if the NYT just sorta made this up, and suddenly gets inundated with requests for floating ads at 1/3 the rate?

[akaoni 0]

Why would the NYT not publish these rates? Do they not want to sell them? Is this a standard practice in the publishing biz?

 

Rusty or anyone familiar this business, please chime in.

 

Why would you want to print the discount rate? If people come to you and ask to print an advertisement on a certian day, you give them the rate, why tell them that they can save money by using an alternate option?

[Snoopy1 0]

I can see where they might publish the "list" price for a guaranteed ad, in hopes that more people do that. But I'm guessing that most people who place such large ads are aware that this can be done.

 

Wouldn't it be funny if the NYT just sorta made this up, and suddenly gets inundated with requests for floating ads at 1/3 the rate?

 

 

They are aware, from my readings of the Times story, both Giullani and moveon both purchased thier ads through agencies.

[davebg 0]

Why would the NYT not publish these rates? Do they not want to sell them? Is this a standard practice in the publishing biz?

 

Rusty or anyone familiar this business, please chime in.

In cable TV it is very different. They have something called an Up Front, which is exactly what it sounds like...the networks try to book as much of their inventory as they can up-front before the new deal year. Whatever is left is then sold as something called Scatter. Some years they sell a large chunk of their ad space during the Up Front, while other times the networks are forced to sell more Scatter deals.

 

On the digital media side...well, it's pretty much the Wild West right about now.

 

On the TV side, rate cards are pretty much set. We know how much money we can get for a spot that runs for X seconds during X show at X time. As you might expect, we do give better rates to our larger customers and customers who book deals on multiple networks. We also charge more when the advertiser has special requests, like they don't want to be associated w/certain programming or other advertsiers (ie. Coke and Pepsi pretty much don't want to run back to back ads.)

 

On the Digital side it is much more difficult. Part of that is b/c of the relative immaturity of the business model, which is still finding its way. However, a large part of the problem is that in the digital space it is very difficult to determine what your inventory is. It is extremely difficult to know how many impressions that you have available to sell. I know how many 30 and 60 second spots I have during one hour of programming on TV and I know that I can deliver what was contracted. On a website, I don't know how many impressions we will have next month, so I can't completely predict how many spots we have to sell or whether or not I will be able to deliver what was contracted. In fact, right now I am working on a system that (among other things), will more accurately predict inventory and create rate cards based upon that information.

[Boz/BoFan 0]

Um, no. The complaint was that the NYT gave preferable rates to MoveOn. This has been shown to be demonstrablly false. MoveOn had the standby rate, the same as Giuliani. Now you want to shift the ground and say, no it wasn't about pricing, it was about placement, which of course is the new meme being spread about the conservative blogosphere now that their first complaint was shown to be BS. Again, I think that we need to look at the Giuliani ad, which was also printed in a timely fashion on the standby rate. Honestly, the notion that the NYT add department is operating under some kind of secret ideological order strikes me as paranoid at best.

 

As I stated above, this was always a tempest in a teapot. But that said, MoveOn and the Giuliani campaign have both done an excellent job using this non issue to generate some badly needed publicity.

 

Oh really?

 

N.Y. Times admits Petraeus ad sold to Moveon.org at 1/2 off

 

BY RICH SCHAPIRO

DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

 

Sunday, September 23rd 2007, 4:00 AM

 

 

The old gray lady has some explaining to do.

 

Officials at the New York Times have admitted a liberal activist group was permitted to pay half the rate it should have for a provocative ad condemning U.S. Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus.

 

The MoveOn ad, which cast Petraeus as "General Betray Us" and attacked his truthfulness, ran on the same day the commander made a highly anticipated appearance before Congress.

 

But since the liberal group paid the standby rate of $64,575 for the full-page ad, it should not have been guaranteed to run on Sept. 10, the day Petraeus warned Congress against a rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq, Times personnel said.

 

"We made a mistake," Catherine Mathis, vice president of corporate communications for The Times, told the newspaper's public editor.

 

Mathis said an advertising representative left the liberal group with the understanding that the ad would run that Monday even though they had been charged the standby rate.

 

The group should have paid $142,083 to ensure placement that day.

 

Presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani was among the first to attack The Times after the controversial ad ran, rightly accusing the paper of selling the "heavily discounted" advertisement to MoveOn.

 

Giuliani also attacked Hillary Clinton for not denouncing the ad before posting his own advertisement in The Times that asked pointedly, "Who should America listen to? A decorated soldier's commitment to defending America, or Hillary Clinton's commitment to defending MoveOn.org?"

 

Eli Pariser, the executive director of MoveOn, told The Times there was no discussion of a standby rate when a member of the group called the paper on Friday, requesting the Monday ad.

[BLS 314]

goaway

 

 

Why? Giuliani CERTAINLY isn't a conservative.

 

Pro Abortion

Abortions funded by Federal Government

Relaxed Immigration Laws

Anti Guns

 

Can't get much more liberal than that.....

[davebg 0]

It also apparently violated the NYT's own ad policy, which bars "attacks of a personal nature."

[heavy-set 39]

Why? Giuliani CERTAINLY isn't a conservative.

 

Pro Abortion

Abortions funded by Federal Government

Relaxed Immigration Laws

Anti Guns

 

Can't get much more liberal than that.....

i was talking to gocolts

 

it was a play on words,

 

gocolts

goaway

 

 

HTH

[gocolts 300]

Why? Giuliani CERTAINLY isn't a conservative.

 

Pro Abortion

Abortions funded by Federal Government

Relaxed Immigration Laws

Anti Guns

 

Can't get much more liberal than that.....

heavy-set is one of my stalkers.

[Boz/BoFan 0]

Nothing akaoni?

 

This may be my finest owning.

[Boz/BoFan 0]

Nothing akaoni?

 

This may be my finest owning.

 

Come on akorn, man up. Still nothing? Liberal integrity is fascinating.

[akaoni 0]

Come on akorn, man up. Still nothing? Liberal integrity is fascinating.

 

Wow, someone's obsessing a bit.

 

I agree, it appears that I was incorrect in my assessment of the NYT's pricing for the add. They gave the discount rate but guaranteed the placement of the spot.

 

Regardless, as I stated above, this is a huge tempest in a tea pot. It's an issue that was blown up and essentially served as a big publicity stunt for both MoveOn and for the Giuliani campaign. If you'll look at my first post, that was my primary point. I hardly think that a discount given to MoveOn leads to the conclusion that there was some kind of massive conspiracy. It's no secret that the NY Times editorial board has a liberal stance, just like the Wall Street Journal has a conservative one, but I doubt very much that there is some ideological overlord cracking the whip down in the advertising department. This issue has from the start been overblown, but it has served as a good fund-raising tool for both conservatives and liberals alike.

[kpbuckeye 3]

Wow, someone's obsessing a bit.

 

I agree, it appears that I was incorrect in my assessment of the NYT's pricing for the add. They gave the discount rate but guaranteed the placement of the spot.

 

Regardless, as I stated above, this is a huge tempest in a tea pot. It's an issue that was blown up and essentially served as a big publicity stunt for both MoveOn and for the Giuliani campaign. If you'll look at my first post, that was my primary point. I hardly think that a discount given to MoveOn leads to the conclusion that there was some kind of massive conspiracy. It's no secret that the NY Times editorial board has a liberal stance, just like the Wall Street Journal has a conservative one, but I doubt very much that there is some ideological overlord cracking the whip down in the advertising department. This issue has from the start been overblown, but it has served as a good fund-raising tool for both conservatives and liberals alike.

 

you ran your mouth and got owned. live with it.

[Boz/BoFan 0]

but I doubt very much that there is some ideological overlord cracking the whip down in the advertising department.

 

 

Oh really? Do a little reading on Arthur Sulzberger Jr. From all honest accounts, he is a closeted socialist.

 

At least you can admit it you were wrong, I respect that....although you threw in a few red herrings Ill give you a pass.