I'm still having trouble understanding the distinctions as to why the advertising sales director's argument is incorrect.
It initially seemed to me that they invalidated the magazine editor's argument since the sales director states that readers' responses to the ads are not dependent on their opinion of the magazine's editorial integrity.
The magazine editor argues that they would lose readership because the readers would respond by thinking the editorial integrity was compromised.
If what the sales director says is true, wouldn't that mean the ads have no impact on the editorial integrity of the magazine, and therefore readers would not think it had been compromised?
Reply
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
The sales director completely misses the point of the argument. The editors argument is that their readers would abandon them if they suspected impropriety, which would effectively kill the magazine.
The ad director completely ignores this, and argues that the readers would still pay attention to ads. This is, of course, stupid, since if there are no longer any readers, there will be nobody to see the ads.
The issue isn't whether the readers will respond to the ads in a certain way, it's whether they will still read the paper at all, a point the editor made that the ad director failed to even address.
