Comments on: Did Paul Harvey Architect the Best Advertising Solution for Online Episodic Content? http://www.downloadablemedia.org/index.php/did-paul-harvey-architect-the-best-advertising-solution-for-online-episodic-content This is the official site of the Association for Downloadable Media. Blog posts are authored by the ADM board and members. Tue, 9 Feb 2010 18:21:10 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Anson G. http://www.downloadablemedia.org/index.php/did-paul-harvey-architect-the-best-advertising-solution-for-online-episodic-content/comment-page-1#comment-19276 Anson G. Mon, 02 Mar 2009 02:42:27 +0000 http://www.downloadablemedia.org/?p=214#comment-19276 Was Paul Harvey a newsman who sold a product, or a salesman who happened to provide some news. In all my years growing up and listening to him on the radio, I thought he was the former. I now realize he was the latter. That's not bad. There's no criticism here. Rather, it's the simple reality of mass media (since the beginning) and Paul Harvey was the poster-boy for it. I reflect a lot on newspapers. Are they providing news, the costs of which are paid by advertising? Or are they first and foremost, a business whose product is messaging (ads), and in the process, the public gets informed on the news side? I wonder how many "Paul Harveys" today -- particularly younger ones -- can answer that. On your comments regarding separation between content and the advertising message, I came across an interesting item on CNN today. Story was about Obama's $100 billion for education, and they segued a bit to an sweet little example of "teacher-ingenuity" ("Teacher-entrepreneurism"?). San Diego math teacher wanted to help offset exam printing costs last year. What did he do? Sold advertising to local firms, inserting ads into the top and the margins of the exam booklets. Go figure. The medium is the message; not sure if that's entirely relevant here, McLuhan's thing, but you really can not distinguish sales messaging anymore from the medium that carries it. <em>And do we even need to</em>? Was Paul Harvey a newsman who sold a product, or a salesman who happened to provide some news. In all my years growing up and listening to him on the radio, I thought he was the former. I now realize he was the latter.

That’s not bad. There’s no criticism here. Rather, it’s the simple reality of mass media (since the beginning) and Paul Harvey was the poster-boy for it.

I reflect a lot on newspapers. Are they providing news, the costs of which are paid by advertising? Or are they first and foremost, a business whose product is messaging (ads), and in the process, the public gets informed on the news side? I wonder how many “Paul Harveys” today — particularly younger ones — can answer that.

On your comments regarding separation between content and the advertising message, I came across an interesting item on CNN today. Story was about Obama’s $100 billion for education, and they segued a bit to an sweet little example of “teacher-ingenuity” (“Teacher-entrepreneurism”?). San Diego math teacher wanted to help offset exam printing costs last year. What did he do?

Sold advertising to local firms, inserting ads into the top and the margins of the exam booklets. Go figure.

The medium is the message; not sure if that’s entirely relevant here, McLuhan’s thing, but you really can not distinguish sales messaging anymore from the medium that carries it.

And do we even need to?

]]>