Another supported the idea,giving credit to the judgment of magazine editors:
My favorite magazines are my favorite magazines because I like what's in them.The people who put those magazines together know what their readers like.They know they have to have readers to stay in business,so they are not going to put things in there that we don't like.So I guess I trust them to put in information that's useful whether or not it's due to a business deal or just a writer's opinion.
·The Topic Matters
Though some women were accepting of the complementary editorial practice regardless of topic or publication,however,there was a strong theme within most of the interviews that the topic and the type of publication do matter when evaluating if complementary editorial is or is not an acceptable practice.The following quotes from two different women summarize the participants'views well:
Most women's magazines just aren't all that serious to begin with,so it really doesn't matter.But Time or a financial magazine,now that could be different.The material is just more important,or I mean,potentially more important I guess.A mutual fund buy is more important than buying lipstick-although with the price of some lipsticks you sort of wonder(laugh).
It's not only the audiences they(different magazines)seek,but also how they feel about their reputations.In Cosmo I would expect it,but if I saw it in National Geographic,I would write a letter to the editor.
For serious information you want to think the recommendation is unbiased,or at least as unbiased as possible.It's different if you know an advertiser indirectly paid for the recommendation.You still have to be the judge no matter who tells you something,but it would help you make that decision or judgment if you knew who the things were coming from.
If it were preion drugs or something,that would be a little different than a pack of bubblegum.I'd think less of a preion drug because that has more of an effect on a person than a pack of bubblegum.
·I Would Think Less of My Magazine
Very few women in the study said that knowing a magazine engaged in complementary editorial would change their opinions of the magazine.However some did.The following quotes explain:
I think I'd think a little less of the magazine if I knew.I guess it doesn't really hurt anything,but I'd sort of feel like I'd been cheated or mislead.
You see things in the magazines all the time that say“advertisement”or“special advertising section.”That's ok.You know who it's from and the information can be pretty interesting,you know,or useful.I think a lot of women read magazines like Glamour and even Better Homes and Gardens for the ads anyway.I know I like the ads just as much as the articles.I get useful stuff from both.I guess I'd wish the magazine would not do it(complementary editorial)when they could just put it in one of those special advertising sections and be more honest about it.
·I Might Think Less,But I Wouldn't Drop My Subion
Even those women who said they would think less of their favorite publication in light of the complementary editorial practice agreed with the other women in the study in saying that knowing a magazine gave complementary editorial to advertisers would not make them drop their subions to their favorite magazines.
Generally,I don't take the magazine too seriously anyway.I just enjoy them.
Yea,I guess I would think a little less of the editors and maybe even the advertisers for asking for it or accepting it,but if it's a magazine I'm already subscribing to,I obviously subscribe to it because I like it.So I guess I'd still subscribe.
I'd drop the magazine if the content was consistently offensive to me,but I don't think much of anything that would be in what did you call it,complementary mentions,would really be offensive.
·Advertisers Use of Influence to Prevent Content
While women were generally accepting of complementary editorial,the issue of advertisers attempting to prevent certain content from being printed in magazines caused mixed and often strongly stated feelings.As with complementary editorial,some women expressed that advertisers wanting to prevent certain types of content is“just business.”One representative participant said,“I can see why an advertiser wouldn't want the magazine to offend anybody or say something bad about their product.”However,very few women in the study were as accepting of advertisers trying to prevent content than they were of complementary editorial.
·I Can Think for Myself
Women who expressed the strongest negative feelings toward advertisers'attempts to prevent content were uncomfortable with the idea of media censorship.The following quotes summarize the ideas discussed:
It's the advertiser's job to tell me about the things they have for sale.It's not their job to decide what gets printed in a magazine.That's what the writers get paid to do.It seems to me the writers would know more what their readers want to read about than the advertisers do.
I don't think it's right for rich businesses to prevent me from getting information.Let me decide if the information is offensive or bad.I can think for myself.It's just another example of how much power we've let big business have in this country.It's way out of control.
If I see something I don't like in a magazine or on TV or something,I turn it off or I watch it anyway and gripe about it.It's sort of fun to have something to gripe about every once in a while.You know,if I don't see things that I don't like,how do I know how I really feel anyway,I sure don't think to call up the advertiser and blame them because Cosmo writes an article that is insulting to women.You know,if I'm reading Cosmo or watching a show like South Park,you know the sort of gross-out animated thing on cable,I probably like it and am not offended by it to start with,or I wouldn't be watching it.
I think it's really unfair for an advertiser to threaten to pull their ads if they don't like something that is going to be published.
