Believe it or not, there’s a Mastercard print ad running right alongside massive coverage of a horrific assault on a British honeymooning couple on the tropical paradise island of Antigua.
The advertisement depicts a beautiful, deserted island and the headline: "Arriving: Priceless." Ouch. Talk about bad timing. Talk about horrific placement. Suffice it to say there was nothing "priceless" about this use of the corporate sobriquet. 
Who’s to blame when something like this occurs? Is it the paper? Mastercard’s advertising agency that bought the space? Or, does the final responsibility lie with the brand itself? Surely, it’s the brand that suffers the image and reputation damage from such an obvious blunder.
Mistakes happen, and to err is human. But, if I’m a friend or family member of the ill-starred honeymooners, I’d be slow to forgive Mastercard. This particular advert is tasteless, not priceless.
It’s another case of a work process that is “convenient” for the seller, and hurts the customer.
Just labelling the page with the advertiser’s name is not nearly enough – how could the poor editor know it would be a Caribbean beach ad? The magazine needs a better system to protect their precious customers from mess-ups like this. In the worst case, it should have been pulled at the final composition phase.
If I were Mastercard, I’d be furious.
It’s another case of a work process that is “convenient” for the seller, and hurts the customer.
Just labelling the page with the advertiser’s name is not nearly enough – how could the poor editor know it would be a Caribbean beach ad? The magazine needs a better system to protect their precious customers from mess-ups like this. In the worst case, it should have been pulled at the final composition phase.
If I were Mastercard, I’d be furious.
Thanks Greg. I figured it was the paper’s ultimate responsibility. But, Mastercard is the one that comes across looking foolish, indifferent, or both.
It’s the other way around. Advertising determines the amount of space allocated in each edition. So, the ad is already on the page and the space is blocked off so the editor knows what they need to fill. If a story is meaninful enough, it will “jump” to another page. Generally, the space blocked out on the page should be labeled as to the adveretiser’s name so the editor should have some common sense as to where to place stories and show some sensitivity. The story could have been placed on another page.
Surely, it’s the newspaper’s bad judgement for placing the ad next to the news coverage? Mastercard’s agency bought the space but they can’t foretell what will be in the news when their ad runs. It is tasteless, but I would hesitate to blame Mastercard.