#BizTrends2019

Marketing & Media trends

More Articles

#RecruitmentFocus

SPONSORED BY:


More...
Advertise on Bizcommunity

Subscribe to industry newsletters

Shoe City ad: You magazine editor responds

In a statement released this afternoon, Wednesday, 8 June 2011, You magazine editor Linda Pietersen has said that, as editor, she is just as upset as readers about the Shoe City advertisement in the issue of 26 May. "We've spoken to the advertisers and conveyed our shocked and disappointment in their advertisement," she says.
You magazine editor Linda Pietersen
Pietersen also points out that she's a cat lover and would never support or endorse any form of animal abuse.

She continues: "We have also asked them to post an official statement on our Facebook page, www.facebook.com/YOUmagazineSA. We are also reassessing the process of our screening ads, as the current system is not satisfactory.

"To our readers: thank you for taking the time to show your support against the abuse of animals."

The magazine will also be donating R15 000 to animal welfare organisations.

For more:


For More links updated at 10.42pm on 9 June 2011.
For More list updated at 3.55pm on 21 June 2011.
Get a daily news update via WhatsApp or sign up to our newsletters.
Comment
Don Packett
Although, she probably thought it was ok (as do I) and let it through. After the backlash, she's trying to appease the masses.It really doesn't scream "animal cruelty", it screams "possible everyday scenarios". People should get over themselves. There are more important things to worry about. Like lunch. Maybe thinking Chinese today. Hmmm...
Posted on 9 Jun 2011 11:55
Robert Jones
Why is it no one can ever say "Sorry, we made a mistake and should not have accepted the ad". That would have had so much more credibility than the spin speak written above. Bob Jones
Posted on 9 Jun 2011 15:21
Justin Lyons
I agree, all mags need to be approved before going to print. the problem comes in when ad revenue exceeds moral standards. the editor should take full responsibility for running the ad, instead of putting the blame on the advertiser. there is clearly no integrity as far as content goes.
Posted on 9 Jun 2011 15:56
xina le Roux
Being an animal lover myself and hating any type of abuse toward them, my first reaction to the ad was total recoil.. BUT, it had the effect of a car accident where you "have to look/read further" at the end of the ad, I came away with the whole retail therapy gist that I am guessing was the original intention, but perhaps not the creative team's smartest day. As a creative person myself, it left a sour taste, what will your average tannie suzie you mag reader think of it all? A clever concept, but botched in execution and totally wrong target market.
Posted on 14 Jun 2011 09:20
Boota Pitso
What i am wondering is why the editor seems shcoked and disturbed about an ad only after public out-cry. Strange..
Posted on 24 Jun 2011 09:13

Related

News