In a recent issue of Harper’s Magazine, the following ad appeared on page 43:

Most ads—obviously, perhaps—contain images and/or copy that appeal to a target demographic. Less obvious is which demographic this ad is aiming for. At first glance it seems that marketers at Harper’s may have thought the copy in this ad would attract 45-year-old-plus printophiles, and among them, those who would accept an antagonism to content (or, the incoherent, topical mess of the internet). Content, says the ad, is toxic.

But it seems likely that there’s an irony at play here that I—someone made uncomfortable by this ad’s face value—is supposed to enjoy. After all, Harper’s has a blog—and a twitter. If I am among the demographic who may visit their blog, among others, frequently, then perhaps I’m supposed to detect the tongue in the cheek. But the ad doesn’t make me want to renew my subscription. It presents me with the same kind of rhetoric many print media outlets are using on repeat to tell the story of their slow death.  Harper’s content speaks for itself, and I want it again and again, every month of the year, in addition to the internet.

I came across this ad after I’d gotten through my favorite part of the magazine: the Reading section. Harper’s reading section is a curated collection of excerpts from books, transcripts, other magazines, and, a more recent addition, something published online only even though their website claims they will accept no blog submissions to readings. On page 19 of the same issue containing the ad was an excerpt from the online diary of George Sodini, which documents the time leading up to his murder of three women at an L.A. Fitness club.

Until recently, I was under the impression that Harper’s in print refused to “reblog.” They should keep “reblogging.” It really works.

This ad doesn’t.

(clicks to renew)

—AH