Findings also indicate that women already question the credibility of women's publications and tend to take what they read in these magazines“with a grain of salt.”For this reason they are neither shocked nor overly worried about advertisers limiting content.Women in the study stated:
Especially magazines like the kind I read,like People and stuff,you can take what you read and cut it in half.And then maybe you believe half of what you read.I guess,you know,I really don't take everything to heart.So it wouldn't really affect me.
I know this is a very biased view,but in women's magazines,I just don't give them as much credit as Time and Newsweek because I feel these last two have more information.It doesn't surprise me that it happens in Cosmo.
Nothing is fair.(Advertisers)can threaten to do that(pull ads),but I think if the magazine is worth its salt,they will do what they want to do.But they won't cow tow to advertisers.Trashy magazines get trashy advertisers.
·If Only I Knew
Whereas women feel confident that they can identify complementary editorial when they see it,they admit there is no way to know when a magazine is withholding content.As the following quotes illustrate,they would definitely think less of those publications that alter content to please advertisers.However,without any way of knowing if they do,women are going to keep on reading.
The sad part of this is that you will never know just how much influence the advertisers have had over what we don't see.Unless it's reported in the news media or something,we'll just never know so maybe it's pointless to get upset about it.Still I think both,no,we all have something to lose with this.What I mean by that is people would be angry with magazines and advertisers if they knew-I know I would be.So I think people would not think highly of magazines and advertisers so they lose.Everybody else loses because we don't get to see potentially important information that we just might need sometime.
I guess it would be interesting to know just how much we don't see because of advertisers.I guess you can never really know that.But if it's a lot,then I'd definitely think less of the magazines I read.
I think that if a magazine pulled a story that would withhold information from the people.Not that I would know but I would think less of a magazine if I did.
I would rather read a magazine that would let the readers be the voice of the magazine and realistically that probably doesn't happen now.I can't say that I would not read this magazine because if I'm still reading it I must not notice that this is going on.
Discussion
Based on the findings of this investigation,advertisers and women's magazines can be relatively confident that engaging in complementary editorial will not significantly erode the credibility of advertisers or the magazine.In fact,some women in this study cited that editorial mentions of advertisers'products and services can be useful.While some wished that the information be set aside in“special advertising sections,”no one said that she would drop a current subion for a magazine she already liked if it was known that the magazine engaged in complementary editorial.Earlier findings suggest that female magazine readers like advertising;it adds an appealing visual element to the publication(Cunningham and Haley,2000).This study further suggests that women often go to women's magazines for product/fashion information.Whether that information is packaged as advertising or editorial doesn't seem to matter.
The implications beyond women's lifestyle magazines are less clear.A strong theme in the interviews with women readers was that certain types of information were more important than others.Women cited financial,news and health magazines as types of publications in which they would not want to find complementary editorial because the material that these publications covered had more significant impact than most of the material usually covered in lifestyle magazines.Women,however,are not very concerned with this practice in large part because they believe they are able to identify complementary editorial when they see it.
Based on what the women in this study stated,attempts by advertisers to prevent media content has greater potential to damage the credibility of both the advertiser and the magazine.The basic difference that women draw between the practice of complementary editorial and advertiser influence to prevent content was that complementary editorial provided information,and advertiser influence to prevent content denied information.Researchers warn that such practice can jeopardize overall public confidence in the media(Cameron and Haley,1992;Hoyt,1990;Hays and Reisner,1990).This study indicates that this has already happened with women's and lifestyle magazines;however,for these publications,credibility is not a major issue.Women,therefore continue to read magazines they do not find credible.
The research in the area of advertising's editorial impact generally expresses the fear that a stifled media will lead to an uninformed and stagnant society(Bagdikian,1992;Soley and Craig,1992;Hays and Reisner,1990;Howland,1989).The women in this study expressed similar concerns though not as strongly as one often hears in academic circles.The participants in this study seem to be less concerned for a couple of reasons:①they recognize the business incentive for both advertisers and media;②they view themselves as savvy media consumers who know which publications they can trust and which are purely for entertainment.However,as the above quotes illustrate,readers admit that they have little way of knowing when such censorship occurs.
