General: Food Network »
Shocking Food Network/Rachael Ray Magazine Advertising Statistics
 |
I understand magazines contain ads. No surprise there – it’s how they pay the bills. But clearly, some magazines go more overboard with the advertising than others. While flipping through my June/July 2009 issue of Food Network magazine over the weekend, I found myself absolutely outraged at how many ads it contained. It felt like every time I turned the page, I was looking at another full page ad for Cuisinart or Heinz.
So, half bored and half curious, I decided to do a statistical analysis of the number of ads in the issue. I think the results will shock – and disgust – you.
59 of the magazine’s 162 pages were made up of full page advertisements! That means more than 1/3 of the magazine was nothing but full page ads – and that doesn’t even include the other half page ads, or the additional ads on other pages! In my humble opinion, that is disgusting.
BACKGROUND:
I didn’t just stop at Food Network magazine. My friends and I also looked at the advertising ratios in the May/June issues of the following magazines: Rachael Ray, Time, Us Weekly, Paula Deen, Bon Appetit, and Star. We counted and tallied four main statistics: 1) Pages that contained ads, 2) Pages with full page ads, 3) Total ads, and 4) Total pages in the magazine. From these, we calculated basic ratios and percentages. We defined an “ad” as anything that contained a URL or a phone number, or anything that was a blatant ad for a company/product.
FULL PAGE ADS:
EVERY DAY WITH RACHAEL RAY had the highest percentage of Full Page Ads (58 pages out of 162 pages were full page ads), at a staggering 40%.
FOOD NETWORK MAGAZINE had the 2nd highest percentage of Full Page Ads (59 pages out of 162 pages were full page ads), at 36%.
STAR had the lowest percentage of Full Page Ads at 11% (11/97), and surprisingly, PAULA DEEN MAGAZINE had the second lowest percentage of Full Page Ads at 17% (17/100). I’m shocked, y’all! Go Paula!
PAGES THAT CONTAINED ADS:
EVERY DAY WITH RACHEL RAY again came in first, with ads on 55% of its pages (81 pages out of 146 pages had some sort of ad).
FOOD NETWORK MAGAZINE had ads on 49% of its pages (80 of 162 pages had some sort of ad).
When compared to STAR, with ads on 24% of its pages, or PAULA DEEN MAGAZINE, with ads on 27% of its pages, the high Food Network and Rachael Ray ratios seem even more outrageous.
TOTAL NUMBER OF ADS:
By far, EVERY DAY WITH RACHAEL RAY had the highest ratio of ads, at 118% (173 ads on 146 total pages).
US WEEKLY came in 2nd place, with 82% (77 ads on 93 pages).
FOOD NETWORK MAGAZINE came in third with 69% (111 ads on 162 pages).
TIME MAGAZINE had the lowest total ratio at 24%, followed by Bon Appetit at 47% and Paula Deen at 49%.
OTHER SHOCKING STATISTICS:
1) In the May 2009 issue of Every Day with Rachael Ray, a staggering 40 of the first 80 pages are full page advertisements. Wow.
2) In the June/July 2009 issue of Food Network magazine, 35 of the first 80 pages are full page advertisements.
THE BOTTOM LINE:
When I shell out $4-$5 for a cooking magazine, I want to see recipes and tips, not ADS GALORE. The ad-to-recipe ratio in Food Network Magazine and Everyday With Rachael Ray is aggravating and outrageous. Personally, I didn’t walk away from their magazines feeling inspired. I walked away feeling ripped off and annoyed.
If Paula Deen, Time, and countless other magazines can maintain ad ratios of under 50%, there is only one reason Rachael Ray needs to have an ad ratio of 118%, and Food Network Mag needs to have an ad ratio of 69%: namely, GREED.
<
Other posts on Food Network Humor:
---Food Network Magazine Ad Placement Fail---Food Network Magazine: Fall 2009 Issue
---The Deen Brothers Now Have Their Own Magazine [NOW I've Heard It All]
---5 Things I Learned From The Food Network Magazine (June, 2010 Issue)
---Bad Deal Of The Day: Rachael Ray Magazine Edition
- General: Food Network
Filed Under
Post your comments
HELP US PAY THE BILLS!
If you enjoy the content on Food Network Humor and would like to help me pay the website bills, please use the "donate" option below. Any amount is greatly appreciated.
Thank you! -Jill
Categories
- Best Of FNH (92)
- Closed Captions (20)
- FN on Facebook (5)
- FNH Google Search Terms (6)
- FNH Interviews (1)
- FNH Podcast (20)
- FNH Voicemails (1)
- Food Fight (5)
- Food Network Hosts (857)
- Aaron McCargo Jr (13)
- Adam Gertler (2)
- Aida Mollenkamp (6)
- Alex Guarnaschelli (5)
- Alton Brown (29)
- Anne Burrell (30)
- Bobby Flay (41)
- Claire Robinson (10)
- Dave Lieberman (1)
- Duff Goldman/Mary Alice (30)
- Giada De Laurentiis (66)
- Guy Fieri (150)
- Ina Garten (78)
- Ingrid Hoffman (2)
- Paula Deen (139)
- Rachael Ray (112)
- Sandra Lee (144)
- Sunny Anderson (7)
- The Neelys (4)
- Tyler Florence (13)
- Foodie of the Week (1)
- General: Food Humor (107)
- General: Food Network (485)
- Letters To FNH (33)
- Lists (33)
- New Rules (3)
- Next Food Network Star (80)
- Next Iron Chef (18)
- Numbers in the News (2)
- Open Thread (6)
- Reader Submitted Posts (28)
- SHOW SWAP (1)
- Things We Hate (11)
- Twitter Conversations (35)
- Uncategorized (1)
- Worst Cooks In America (7)
We are not affiliated with the Food Network, or any of their hosts, in any way. This is a satire, humor, and parody website.
(c) 2012 Food Network Humor - All Rights Reserved
36 Responses
this is awesome.
Ok. I’d like to see these in a Pie Chart.
*guffaws*
YES! The advertising in rachael ray’s mag, and food network’s mag, is off the charts (as tyler florence would say). i bought one once, and will never make that mistake again.
My friends make fun of me and call me cheap, but I go to the library and read magazines there. The advertising in these food magazines is just as bad as it is in the fashion magazines, and especially in this economy, I simply refuse to pay for ads.
Kudos to you for exposing this fact and making others aware!
Okay, seriously Jillian, maybe we were separated at birth because I did something similar to this with my friends about 6 months ago… only it was with Elle magazine. And a bottle of Petron.
Paying for ads? LUDICROUS!
I’m so glad you did this study, cause I sure aint paying $5 for the stupid magazine just to read a bunch of ads. Thanks, FNH!
Wow! My grandmother bought me a year’s subscription of Rachel Ray for Christmas (I was less than thrilled, but I smiled and thanked her…and I let my 9 month old tear up the issues I’m done reading because honestly…her recipes aren’t great, and most aren’t very “inspired”), I haven’t even opened this month’s “double” issue….now I’m not sure I want to.
Interesting, considering Food Network the network doesn’t have an intrusive amount of commercials, and except for the ones with Guy Fieri, aren’t terribly annoying.
I guess that I’m astounded that anyone is still buying mqagazines like these. I’d think that anyone interested in food or recipes, and insisting on a magazine rather than using the internet for recipes, would be looking at magazines like Eating Well, Cooking Light, Cooks Illustrated, etc. rather than the personality oriented mags.
People are still buying these magazines allright. I just read a sickening article about the Food Network magazine publishers partying and eating, celebrating the fact that they will have over 1million subscribers by next year.
I hope a few people see this article and wise up! You can get recipes on the internet for free people!
Aren’t Food Network and Rachael Ray magazines basically just one big ad anyway?
Yeah, that’s why I don’t mind shelling out an extra dollar or two for Cook’s Illustrated and Cook’s Country magazines. I know that when I buy their magazines, it’s pure content. No ads. Not to mention I’m getting essentially foolproof recipes that are tasty, not some of the questionable content that I see in FN magazines.
It’s ridiculous how ad-happy magazines are nowadays. I have a subscription to Food & Wine magazine (it was only $2, why not?) and every other page is an ad. Not to mention that the last one was half ads for wine vineyards.
Cook’s Illustrated is the way to go.
Um, not that any of you have ever considered it apparently, but magazines rely on advertisers to publish in the first place. No ads, no magazine. Look at Bon Appetit and Gourmet, two magazines that are on the verge of collapse due to lack of advertising support.
…considering all sides of an issue is not what this blog is about.
Anon in So Cal, the first sentence of this article acknowledges the necessity of advertising in magazines.
I can’t speak for the author but I think she is saying there is no need for certain magazines to have so MUCH advertising. If a magazine is made up of almost 40% full page ads, that’s pretty sickening.
Especially when a lot of the recipes call for the ingredients advertised in those self-same ads.
What, you think this is bad?! In newspapers, we’re lucky if we get 35% newshole on a page that isn’t editorial, not counting classifieds and full page ads. I’d be thrilled to have that kind of space for copy. Big deal.
It’s pathetic to take that much space up in advertising but in the end it is what keeps the magazine alive. I am however pretty sure it’s not necessary to have 36% of your magazine covered in full page ads.
Sorry, but this just ain’t news.
Look at almost any other mass-market magazine. A tiny handful (Cook’s Illustrated, Consumer Reports) feature no ads, except for their own products and publications.
Other than that, wall-to-wall ads are the norm. Try a count on Vogue, GQ, Esquire, or Vanity Fair, where the ad space can best be assessed by the pound. Even the once-unsullied pages of Mad (I’ve been waiting decades to reference Mad as an example of journalistic integrity!) now include some.
If you-all are willing to pay enough more for an ad-free mag, someone’ll print one.
So far, though, it hasn’t been a wildly popular and successful biz model. The continued viability of the print mass-market mag generally is pretty much in question, anyway.
Heck, if enough people would pay enough of a premium for it, someone might even start a pay-TV service with no ads, no infomercials, and no shopping channels. Probably cost about $200-$300 per month though…
@BEV: If an advertiser is willing to shell out the dough to appear in an environment with such craptacular editorial, then good for FNM.
Not quite sure how Rachael Ray comes in 2nd for full page ads when 58 pages out of 146 actually equals 39.7%, not 33%.
Jessica, you are absolutely right. Thanks for pointing out my math error. I will fix that ASAP.
You’re welcome! Glad I could help. Not surprising at all that Rachael Ray actually comes in first.
…not surprising at all. If you want to sell a magazine with 40 PERCENT FULL PAGE ADS, don’t charge $4 for it. Charge $2. The greed is disgusting. Even more disgusting is how she and the Food Network pander to us. “Oh, we care about your wallet during the recession.” Bullshit. You care about YOUR wallet in the recession. And your trip to Hawaii. And your new Lexus.
End rant (for now)
This is GREAT what you did. I cancelled my RR after the 2nd issue. And how about all those inserts they put in. I would ripe them OUT before I even started looking at the magazine!!!!
I canceled my subscription to Time because I had trouble finding the articles. Great post!! But I still love my Food Network Magazine…I kinda like the ads b/c I’m a kitchen gadget junkie. ;)
The reason why they do this is because they have no content to shove in their magazine. Between Rachael’s 10 different shows/books/websites/etc. what possibly else can she harm my brain with!? Maybe she has whole articles about her lover, Evoo… who ever that is.
Same with the food network, between their site, books by their food cronies, and shows, what else could they throw out there?
Ad’s are their content filler or their magazine will be 30 pages long, if they use nice big text.
Jillian, you did a fantastic job.
I would like to know how much of the magazine price is profit. Is it 98% or 10%
Also, you should do the same thing with television shows. Most of the time you watch 2 minutes of the show and 4 minutes of commercials.
Anon inSoCal is quite right.
Advertising pays for pretty much everything in print. Don’t want ads? Check out a newspaper.
Advertising pays for the stellar photography in FNM. Advertising pays for the FN celebu-chefs to print their receipes. Can’t have one without the other.
Getting a balance of ad to edit is the trick. Hate to tell you but anything under 50% advertising is quite good. From an edit point of view. Edit is the easiest thing to ad. Advertising is not. Magazines have folded left and right for having 30% ads. Can’t pay bills with so few pages.
Necessary “evil” my friends.
Don’t like it? Too bad. Get rid of advertising and you get rid of thousands of jobs.
Enjoy online reading for now. When everyone figures out how to make more money digitally you will be begging for the days when all you had to do is put the magazine down.
Oh and applauding for Paula’s low ad magazine may make you happy
But when it folds soon I don’t think you’ll be as happy.
That’s a shockingly low amount of ads.
It’ll fold in six months.
[...] doesn’t seem to stick. As Gourmet lost significant advertising revenue, Bon Appetit filled 30 percent of its publication with full and partial page ads. It seems that this is one more unfortunate [...]
I just came across this discussion as I was looking for some adverstising stats. (I’m more interested in looking for stats on brand recognition, but this came up.) I was in the newspaper industry (writer, copy editor) for 15 years, and I have to agree with the people who disagree with your view. First of all, advertising is what helps pay the bills, not subscriptions or single-copy sales. Subscription rates barely cover the cost of delivering. Now then … the space available to the editorial department (meaning, in this case, everything not advertising, not specifically the opinion section), is ALWAYS dependent on how much advertising is sold. (Except on the rare occasions when a mind-blowingly huge event unfolds, like Sept. 11.) On top of that, the amount of space given to the editorial department is determined by a percentage. If that ratio dips too low, the number of pages of that issue of the newspaper (or magazine in this case) has to be decreased. That ratio takes into account all the expendatures/income that will come from the product. For those who only take into consideration the bottom line of income, you must take into consideration how many liabilities must be paid out for each issue: writers/talent, copy editors, managing editors, layout editors, advertising reps, graphic artists, pressmen, and overhead (workman’s comp, payroll taxes, electricity bills, water bills, paper, phone bill, Internet bill, etc.), just to name a portion! Basically, a 60 percent advertisment/editorial ratio is incredibly healthy, especially with the number of pages you described. It looks like you’re so wrapped up in thinking that some big company is lining their pockets with advertising dollars, that you didn’t take into consideration who is to be paid by that: all the employees that help create the magazine. Also, if I see an ad in a magazine, I don’t think, “Must … buy … Parkay … Margerine …” I think about whatever product it is, and if I use it or like it, I may buy it because it supports whatever magazine or newspaper I’m reading.
There’s a lot of things that are hilarious and/or annoying about Food Network, but you’re barking up the wrong tree on this one. A healthy amount of advertising dollars — especially in this economy — is keeping a lot of people employed.
(BTW … I’m no shill or plant. I just wanted to leave my 2 cents in a discussion where I have a bit of knowledge.)
Which is the main reason I stopped buying subscriptions. Kraft Food and Family totally ripped me off by saying they could not find my check I sent them so I was out 2 years of magazines. They put out 4 magazines each year and if I am not mistaken it’s cost close to $20. For 2 years I had argued and went to my bank which went through a change of hands and is now a different bank/name. Effin greedy bastards. The kicker is they are now on occasion sending me magazines. -.- Possibly to shove it in my face.
[...] magazines in the industry, including Time, US Weekly, Rachel Ray and Star, have anywhere from 26 to 55 percent of their pages covered with advertisements according to Food [...]
I have a question. You list Rachael Ray in first with 58 out of 162 and Food Network in second with 59 out of 162. That seems backwards to me.