Rollingstone refuses to run ad for Bible

[Judah]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/20/rollling.stone.ap/index.html

What d'yall think?

Rolling Stone refuses to run ad for Bible
Thursday, January 20, 2005 Posted: 8:03 AM EST (1303 GMT)


GRAND RAPIDS, Michigan (AP) -- -- Rolling Stone magazine declined to run an advertisement for a new translation of the Bible aimed at young people, the nation's largest Bible publisher said Wednesday.

Zondervan, a division of HarperCollins Publishers, bought space in the magazine months ago as part of an ad campaign for Today's New International Version, said Doug Lockhart, Zondervan's executive vice president of marketing.

"Last week, we were surprised and certainly disappointed that Rolling Stone had changed their mind and rejected our ad," he said.

A telephone message seeking comment was left Wednesday at the New York headquarters of Wenner Media LLC, publisher of Rolling Stone.

Lockhart said Zondervan, based in Grand Rapids, paid Wenner Media last July to run the ad in February, when the Bible is due on bookshelves.

On Tuesday, USA Today quoted Kent Brownridge, general manager of Wenner Media, as saying his staff first saw the ad copy last week, and "we are not in the business of publishing advertising for religious messages."

Lockhart said the ad features the face of a contemplative-looking young man and includes this copy:

"In a world of almost endless media noise and political spin, you wonder where you can find real truth. Well, now there's a source that's accurate, clear and reliable. It's the TNIV -- Today's New International Version of the Bible. It's written in today's language, for today's times -- and it makes more sense than ever."

Media outlets that agreed to carry the ad include Modern Bride, The Onion, MTV.com and AOL, Lockhart said. AOL, like CNN.com, is a unit of Time Warner.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

They're Rollingstone. That's what I think of them.

I guess it's their business as to why they rejected to run this ad. In contrast, It doesn't make Rollingstone Magazine very appealing to someone like me. As a consumer, I will keep this story in mind.

This part was interesting: Media outlets that agreed to carry the ad include Modern Bride, The Onion, MTV.com and AOL, Lockhart said. AOL, like CNN.com, is a unit of Time Warner.

 

[ImOuttaControl]

Doesn't suprise me one bit with Rolling Stone. I didn't bother to renew my subscription a few years ago because I got so irritated by their blatantly biased political views. Anything conservative or religious is automatically bad with their editors there. I wanna read about music, not left wing propaganda. And if they have political sections, they need to be a little more balanced.

EDIT: I forgot to mention.. They have every right to deny this ad, but I think they should be a little more open minded and tolerant of some other viepoints...but then again, this is Rolling Stone.

 

[coemgen]

As a member of the media, I cherish an organization's right to chose which ads run in their publication. It doesn't surprise me that they chose to not run it. I also agree with IOC's comments on their political slant. It gets annoying.

 

[cardosino]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/20/rollling.stone.ap/index.html

What d'yall think?

Rolling Stone refuses to run ad for Bible
Thursday, January 20, 2005 Posted: 8:03 AM EST (1303 GMT)


GRAND RAPIDS, Michigan (AP) -- -- Rolling Stone magazine declined to run an advertisement for a new translation of the Bible aimed at young people, the nation's largest Bible publisher said Wednesday.

Zondervan, a division of HarperCollins Publishers, bought space in the magazine months ago as part of an ad campaign for Today's New International Version, said Doug Lockhart, Zondervan's executive vice president of marketing.

"Last week, we were surprised and certainly disappointed that Rolling Stone had changed their mind and rejected our ad," he said.

A telephone message seeking comment was left Wednesday at the New York headquarters of Wenner Media LLC, publisher of Rolling Stone.

Lockhart said Zondervan, based in Grand Rapids, paid Wenner Media last July to run the ad in February, when the Bible is due on bookshelves.

On Tuesday, USA Today quoted Kent Brownridge, general manager of Wenner Media, as saying his staff first saw the ad copy last week, and "we are not in the business of publishing advertising for religious messages."

Lockhart said the ad features the face of a contemplative-looking young man and includes this copy:

"In a world of almost endless media noise and political spin, you wonder where you can find real truth. Well, now there's a source that's accurate, clear and reliable. It's the TNIV -- Today's New International Version of the Bible. It's written in today's language, for today's times -- and it makes more sense than ever."

Media outlets that agreed to carry the ad include Modern Bride, The Onion, MTV.com and AOL, Lockhart said. AOL, like CNN.com, is a unit of Time Warner.

It appears Rolling Stone would rather promote lung cancer.

Says it all really.

 

[pax]

I'm even happier that I didn't renew my subscription.

 

[strannix]

As someone who is annoyed by pretty much all advertising, this doesn't bother me at all. They could run ads for the Montana Militia for all I care, I'm gonna read it if I enjoy the content and I'm not gonna read it if I don't (generally I don't these days...).

 

[MaxFisher]

I subscribe to a few left leaning magazines like Harpers, The New Republic, and The New Yorker but they are nothing compared to absolutely blatant left wing machine that is Rolling Stone.

 

[Irvine511]

Rolling Stone has never advertised itself as unbiased and without an agenda (which at one point would have been counter-cultural, maybe), and they're perfectly free to publish whatever they want. if you don't want left-wing journalism, don't buy it.

i won't buy it because their record reviews are now for shit.

 

[joyfulgirl]

Rolling Stone has never advertised itself as unbiased and without an agenda (which at one point would have been counter-cultural, maybe), and they're perfectly free to publish whatever they want. if you don't want left-wing journalism, don't buy it.

And as one who is somewhat creeped out by religious advertising, at the same time that I respect its right to exist, I will be glad not to have to see the ad the next time I pick up RS. Of course they still have many other ads for me to be creeped out by. Oh well.

 

[pax]

The Bible ad would have been a refreshing change from all the mostly-naked pictures of young, stupid women they publish.

 

[strannix]

The Bible ad would have been a refreshing change from all the mostly-naked pictures of young, stupid women they publish.

Says you!

[/disgusting chauvinism]

 

[joyfulgirl]

The Bible ad would have been a refreshing change from all the mostly-naked pictures of young, stupid women they publish.

Well, it would have been a change anyway, though certainly not a refreshing for me. But yeah, that's basically what I meant by them having plenty of other ads that creep me out.

 

[deep]

Do people go to RS looking for a good place to buy a new bible?


I think all publishers’ want ad revenue


I imagine Boy's Life would not take an ad from PFLAG.

This is just a business discussion.

This will validate for the right
that Rock and Roll is from the Devil.

 

[joyfulgirl]

Do people go to RS looking for a good place to buy a new bible?



This is just a business discussion.

I think it's probably a bit more than a pure business decision, but you're right--it's just not the right fit. I mean, to me it would be downright weird. I expect to see ads with half naked people and for cigarettes, etc. in RS, but not one for the Bible, or the Koran, or the Tao Te Ching.

 

[nbcrusader]

Do people go to RS looking for a good place to buy a new bible?

Wouldn't that be the choice of Zondervan, not RS?


Maybe this just shows RS is a blue state publication

 

[DrTeeth]

Originally posted by nbcrusader
Maybe this just shows RS is a blue state publication

Hmm, first the naked women and now this, maybe I should get a subscription.

 

[BVS]

Since when does the Bible have to advertise? I think I'm more discusted by the advertising of God than I am RS refusal to run it.

 

[beli]

Apart from the right to choose advertising, and the perhaps wrong target market, I would agree with the "creepy" bible ads theory. I haven't seen the ad but I'm guessing its not very rock n roll.

My image of a bible ad would be a photo taken in blurry, dreamy focus, and then airbrushed to make the " contemplative-looking young man" appear "angelic" which to me looks very bizarre. A bit like that Michael Jackson photo that Melon posted a little while ago (except with clothes). Really creepy.

Who ever does the usual bible ads, and I only see the USA ones, the Jehovah Witness and Mormon ads, really needs to go to marketing school because those ads may well preach to the convert but I doubt they will increase their "market share".

 

[nbcrusader]

Why run an ad for a Bible?

With so many translations, I bet first time Bible buyers are confused regarding a good translation. Advertising only makes sense.

And please distinguish between sales of Bibles by publishers and groups that proselytize with offers of free Bibles.

 

[cardosino]

Why run an ad for a Bible?

With so many translations, I bet first time Bible buyers are confused regarding a good translation. Advertising only makes sense.

And please distinguish between sales of Bibles by publishers and groups that proselytize with offers of free Bibles.

Also, this was an ad by a PUBLISHER advertising a brand new bible translation, they were not attempting to "advertise God"

I think 2nd hand smoke kills a lot more people than second hand bibles do.......

 

[beli]

And please distinguish between sales of Bibles by publishers and groups that proselytize with offers of free Bibles.

Point taken. What about those ads for Jesus videos that are on the tv at 5:00am during the USA sermon from inside a church type tv programme? Are they for proselytizig purposes? I can't watch them so I never get to the "punch line". They're really creepy too. Perhaps I have never actually seen an ad for a bible from a publisher .......

 

[strannix]

Also, this was an ad by a PUBLISHER advertising a brand new bible translation, they were not attempting to "advertise God"

From the ad:

"In a world of almost endless media noise and political spin, you wonder where you can find real truth".

Bible="real truth". Sounds like an ad for God to me.

Let's face it, an ad simply for a new translation would be aimed at people who already have Bibles - not to people who are confused by all the noise out there.

 

[DrTeeth]

Bible="real truth". Sounds like an ad for God to me.

The Bible is one big ad for God isn't it?

 

[Zoocoustic]

BIG surprise considering this is RS...

...I mean, I've NEVER seen anything even remotely pro-conservative or pro-republican in this magazine.

 

[nbcrusader]

Bible="real truth". Sounds like an ad for God to me.

I guess in today litigious society, they should have put in the appropriate disclaimers.

 

[beli]

...I mean, I've NEVER seen anything even remotely pro-conservative or pro-republican in this magazine.

I think you mean pro-Republican. I would doubt some pro-republican mags would print ads for a bible.

PS I have never understood the bible = Republican party connection.

 

[cardosino]

Let's face it, an ad simply for a new translation would be aimed at people who already have Bibles

No, the reason they chose RS is that this translation is brand new and supposedly more "user friendly", easier for a younger demographic to follow.

 

[Do Miss America]

BIG surprise considering this is RS...

...I mean, I've NEVER seen anything even remotely pro-conservative or pro-republican in this magazine.

Oh so now the Republicans own the Bible.
This place is getting scarrier by the minute. You are clueless my man, absolutely clueless.

 

[cardosino]

The Bible is one big ad for God isn't it?

It is an ad for God in the same way that my DVR's instruction manual is an ad for Pioneer Electronics.