Following her lead...I went and checked up on a few rates myself. Here's what I found (click here to investigate yourself):
Searching for Style goes on to write: "So how do the magazines give thanks? They feature the big brands products in their editorials. There’s a term called PR value which states that a one page feature of your brand in a magazine is worth four times the price of a one page advertisement. Its more valuable when the magazine says “this is great” then when readers see an advertisement from that brand. So that is why big brands pay the huge advertising sums. And as a result, magazines need to talk about the big brand’s products, whether they like them or not."
This little contentious and increasingly more publicly acknowledged point takes us back to the 2009 FTC decree that bloggers must indicate when they are being gifted, bribed, bought or paid in any way on their sites. Have you ever seen a disclaimer at the bottom of a glossy Vogue editorial that quips: "This shoot was sponsored in part by Gucci for $78, 284"? No. And I'm not saying they should, I'm merely revisiting the point as it was relevant in the whole controversy over blogger disclosure versus the traditional print magazine methods of advertising (let's leave editor gifting out of it for now, shall we? That's all whole 'nother kettle of gifted fish).
So my question is to you, dear readers, since bloggers must disclose when they are being paid, and in the flurry of Gucci, Burberry, and all the other brands of the corporate fashion rainbow campaigns springing up on screens everywhere (and NOT in leaderboards or sidebars!), I've not seen any such disclosures, we must conclude that we bloggers (myself included) are running the campaigns as editorial content. For free.
We all know that the issue of what blogs and bloggers are worth monetarily is a continuously contentious one that only continues to snowball as bloggers work harder, reap bigger audiences as reward, exert more influence only to run into a system that prefers to continue to shell out tens of thousands of dollars per month, hundreds of thousands per year, for a slot in "Position C" of one of the major print magazines. Something somewhere's gotta give eventually. I'm not saying bloggers should start dodging emails bearing campaign images and press releases from PRs and demand £10,000 for a two-second post. Nor am I saying that magazines shouldn't continue to reel in their funds from this tried-and-tested system, brands should pay to appear in magazines. And they should pay to appear on blogs. Or should they? Wasn't that the whole point in the first place? The grassroots against the corporate, the individual she or he at home behind her laptop versus the perfectly groomed machine trolling the halls of Number 4 Times Square and equally intimidating addresses? Uninfluenced by gifts and advertisers? But blogs, many blogs, do have space dedicated to ads and ads alone, and bloggers need to cash in on their exertions somehow--internet bills do need paying at the end of the day. What the answer is here, I don't know. I guess this issue of campaigns as content comes back to the increasingly more relevant problem of what is editorial versus advertorial content? Where and how do you draw the line? All I am saying is that this subject is food for thought, a reason to pause and kick around an intellectual hackey-sack and ponder, why is it that, to essentially run the same image, a magazine with a circulation of 100,000 pockets £10,000 and a blog with over 300,000 monthly uniques (not to mention the power of click-to-buy) sees nada. What do you think???