A Quote by Roy Thomson

As for editorial content, that's the stuff you separate the ads with. — © Roy Thomson
As for editorial content, that's the stuff you separate the ads with.
We need to separate marketing messages from content. We need to enforce a clear line between 'editorial' and 'advertising.'
Eventually the consumer will come to appreciate the editorial point of view of every different brand. User-generated content without editorial oversight will simply be background noise.
The thinner a newspaper or magazine is - due to reduced revenue from advertising dollars - the less editorial content because of the standard ad-to-editorial ratio, and the less money there is to support investigative journalism.
'Ms.' always flouted the rules of the ad world that say, especially for products directed at women, that the ad must be connected to the editorial. You don't have food ads unless you have recipes. You don't get clothing ads unless you have lavish fashion coverage. We never did that; every other women's magazine does.
The editorial board, who endorses candidates, is totally separate from the news side of the business. We don't consult one another. They have one job to do, we have a totally different one to do. So whether the Washington Post editorial board endorses Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton is meaningless to me.
Movies you pay for - well, sometimes they throw some ads at the beginning now - but generally you pay for ads. And that business model - actually, much more ancient, paying for stuff - is much more straightforward in terms of the incentives of the people who are then giving you the stuff.
Millennials don't want to be bombarded by ads. But what is so interesting to me, though, is how willingly they accept native content. Or native advertising - it's not even native content.
An electronic paper has infinite space because you can bring forth as much content as a reader wants. And the resolution of ads is very high. And when you touch the ad you can interact with the advertiser and the paper will take you to the advertiser's Web site and you can get more information. So ideally there should be a better connection between the ads you're shown and what you're actually interested in.
In our case, we focus on quality, and we have a very simple model. If we show fewer ads that are more targeted, those ads are worth more. So we're in this strange situation where we show a smaller number of ads and we make more money because we show better ads. And that's the secret of Google.
I don't think anyone would object to Facebook selling ads or having ads directed at me, as long as people didn't think those ads were manipulated by personal data.
I'd love to maybe explore editorial, or join a creative team for a brand, looking at imagery and content. Fashion is so vast, there's a million things.
I have a team that works with me toward offering products that are important to and well suited to what the shopper wants, along with an engaging editorial content I'm involved with.
When you're reading a newspaper and you're seeing ads on the page, it's not kind of invasive. Like, it's on the page next to the article. You can look at it or not. You can turn the page when you're ready. On the internet, the ads - many of the ads - just are so controlling. They insist that you see them.
I'm a better editorial cartoonist by default because so many editorial cartoonists out there are so awful.
If you knew the user, you'd let them in. But, the content could contain a lot of dangerous stuff, even if you know the person using that content, you have to check what's inside there. That's where Fortinet started, trying to go deep inside of content, or inside an application to make sure those were secure.
While readers know that advertisements keep the product cost low, they still buy a newspaper for its editorial content and not for its advertisements.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!