There’s an old story about an English newspaper that makes a fitting hors d’oeuvre to this month’s cover piece. The events of the story occurred in the late ’60s, and many retellings in the ensuing years have cemented the story’s place in media folklore. One of these retellings took place in 1978, in an article with the impressive sounding title of “The Integration of Advertising and Circulation Sales Policies”, written by a guy called Michael Mander. It’s recognised as a particularly authoritative rendition because Mander was deputy chief executive of the Times, said English newspaper, during the events in question.
In the article Mander explains how it was “a remarkable achievement” that sales at the Times shot from 270,000 to 450,000 between 1967 and 1969. The problem was that “higher sales made it no more attractive as an advertising mediumadding to the readership just watered down the essential target group and increased the cost of reaching it.” Mander then adds: “A reversal of policy changed the situation with a consequent dramatic improvement of profitability. The circulation is back down to 300,000.”
So consumer affluence is at the heart of this story. It’s a moral about marketers wanting to reach the target audience most likely to be positively influenced by their message, at the best possible cost. And it’s relevant to this month’s cover piece because local marketers, like their counterparts worldwide, will spend their money when, where and how it suits them a fait accompli so entrenched as to withstand evidence of racism.