Saturday, June 28, 2008

The Post's Brooklyn Tomorrow advertorial is back

As I wrote last June, Brooklyn Tomorrow, the promotional magazine inserted in the New York Post and the Post-owned Courier-Life chain, is not labeled advertorial though it certainly reads as such. But the latest edition of the annual publication, featuring enthusiastic articles from bylined Courier-Life staffers, certainly helps explain why, despite considerable reason for skepticism, the Post editorial page last week twisted its way to an Atlantic Yards hooray.

The issue includes three pages of advertising from Forest City Ratner, one page for the New Jersey Nets, and a two-page article that is essentially advertorial, mimicking the developer's talking points: While some local critics complain they were not included [in the Community Benefits Agreement], few, if any, were not invted to sit at the table initially in this effort.

Oh, and what about this critique from Bettina Damiani of Good Jobs New York?

Last year's issue

Last year's issue (right) had Atlantic Yards on the cover, with Forest City Ratner or Barclays buying the back cover and the inside front and back covers.

What about the outdoor ads?

Interestingly, on neither of the covers, nor in the centerspread article in the current issue, does the Urban Room at the prow of the flagship tower show any advertising, even though we know that 150-foot tall signage is possible.

Forest City Ratner, in its two-page advertisement in this issue, at least hints at some of the advertising. Note the blue Barclays signs at the bottom of the rendering (below).

However, the perspective of the rendering, from above, obscures the fact that the signage would be quite imposing from a ground-level view.

What else is missing?

It would be unfair to single out the Post's gentle treatment of Forest City Ratner, because other developers get the same care. For example, the publication cheers the Toren, "a new angle on modern living," the 38-story tower at Flatbush and Myrtle Avenues, without mentioning any concerns raised about the 421-a subsidy that produced it or, as the Village Voice just reported, the use of non-union labor.

No comments:

Post a Comment