Take Sunday’s Parade Magazine, for example. They had a great cover story about a recent poll indicating America is giving more than ever before – experiencing a “compassion boom” in spite of tough economic times. After reading it, I went online to see what additional information might be available in connection with the story.
The main page showed nothing about their Sunday cover story except a link to “this week in Parade” at the bottom of the screen. There was, however, a banner ad for Pepsi’s Refresh campaign (a StudioGood supported effort). Pepsi had also purchased a full page ad in the print edition – obviously hoping to grab the same eyeballs that were reading about good works. Same ad, same approach; no double standard, so to speak. But the very crowded Parade webpage was all about celebrities (and a recipe for brown sugar baked beans & Boston brown bread). Just websurfing, I might have skipped right past this site, never knowing about the interesting and motivating story that graced the front page of their “hard copy” issue.
Gripe, gripe, grumble, grumble. You might assume that they’ve put celebrities on the website to grab the youngsters, and put the do-gooder article on the print issue because newspaper readers skew older. But their very own poll identified “Yeppies” – young, engaged problem solvers – who use social media to fuel their activism. Plus, Parade states that now one in four (27%) use Facebook, email, or Twitter to communicate about a cause. By putting fluffy celebrity stories on their main webpage and a happy grandma on their print cover, they’ve basically missed out on young, cause-oriented people twice.
I may be just a mini-mogul, but that seems kinda, well, wrong. Thoughts? Comments? Fist shaking? Yeppies??




Assistance Relief Telethon





