The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News each ran ads for a fake airline, Derrie-Air, this past Friday. They did so knowingly, as it was a way to test their ad reach both in print and online. According to Editor & Publisher, the click through rate was 1.25% compared to their norm of .05%. However, there are many in the media and journalists who are wagging their finger at this Top 50 U.S. newspaper, saying that they crossed an ethical line and border on mistrust from its readership. I'm not sure I agree and here's why:
It's no secret that the newsrooms are dwindling. It's happening to the news media both in print and in broadcast. Try contacting journalists at the top dailies--it's next to impossible. Newspapers are making less money as readers want news on demand and turn to multiple sources for their information, mainly online. There are job cuts everywhere and the journalists who remain are beginning to wear many hats. As The Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Daily News contemplate how a major paper moves forward profitably, it only makes sense to test their strength and reach among their readers. The fake ads for Derrie-Air, in my opinion, are similar to a blind study. Blinding is a basic tool to prevent conscious as well as subconscious bias in research. If you want to understand your advertising reach, how can that be done if you disclose that the ad you are testing is fake? This would bring confounding variables into play. If you disclosed about the fake ads and saw a higher than normal click through--was it because you disclosed and people were curious or because despite the disclosure, a reader was interested in the ad?
From looking at the ad myself, it is blatantly obvious that there is something "wrong" with the ad. Meaning, had I not known prior, I would've thought someone was pulling my leg. For one, the name of the airline alone is cheeky and to pay by the pound for your flight? Outrageous. The feather for a logo? Funny. And the owners story? Hunting alligators and wild boar, eating only line-caught Mississippi fish? What PR firm would ever advise their client to put such nonsense on their website? Not to mention the outlandish quotes, "Heck! These sons-of-a-gun are making me pay by the pound! Now what if we ran an airline the same way..."
While some may argue that the readers of these two papers will now have a sense of mistrust due to the fake ads, I would think that they are intelligent enough to understand why this research was done in the way they did it and forgive them. However, I know I may be alone in my opinion (and it is only my opinion), so I'd love to hear what you think. Did the Philadelphia Inquirer cross the line with these fake ads?
Posted by Shannon Nelson on June 10, 2008 6:47 AM
| Permalink
Comments (3)
I think the ad was hilarious. People's feelings shouldn't have been hurt by the ad so where is the harm in it? Everyone I know got a kick out of it, and let me tell you, it is rare to get a kick out of anything in the newspaper anymore.
Posted by![]()
Brian |
June 10, 2008 9:25 AM
Posted on June 10, 2008 09:25
Useless as any kind of market research, since it is so obviously a joke ("Derrie-Air") that people like me, always desperate for a good laugh, will click through *because* we know it is fake. Even clueless people will click through to answer "WTF?" about the weight-based pricing more than they would for an ordinary ad. Funny though.
Posted by![]()
elmer fudd |
June 13, 2008 4:59 AM
Posted on June 13, 2008 04:59
Brian--I agree, no one was hurt, so I'm not sure what the fuss is about. Maybe just the thought of being deceived?
elmer fudd (ha)--Good point. And again, another reason why I can't understand why people were outraged over it. I just wonder how many people whipped out the calculators to see if they'd be getting a good deal. ;)
Posted by![]()
Shannon |
June 13, 2008 10:24 AM
Posted on June 13, 2008 10:24