Sometimes you have to wonder about advertisers. And sometimes you have to wonder--did anybody outside of New York read DC comics in the 1960s? Because an awful lot of the ads seem pretty New York-centric.
We've all seen the many ads that ran for New Jersey's Palisades Amusement Park that ran in virtually every DC Comic of the era. I suppose on one hand, it's not that much different than an ad for Six Flags or Disney World, right? But then again, how many families across the country are going to plan the next family vacation to New Jersey, to a not terribly well-known amusement park, just because of a cheap ad in a comic book?
And then you see this in the back of Jimmy Olsen #87 (1965):
A national ad to purchase a Mets watch? Really?
At this point in their existence, only their fourth season, the Mets were one of the worst teams in the history of the world. Having lost a record 120 games in 1962, their first season, the Mets proceeded to stink up the joint, finishing 10th every season. In fact, they were so bad, they were always finished farther behind the ninth place team than the 5th place finished behind the 1st place team. That's bad.
I say this not to rag on the Mets (editors note: yes you do), but to put my question into perspective: outside of New York, what kind of demand could there have been for Mets merchandise? Were there really untold bazillions of closet Mets fans across the nation, bemoaning their lack of Mets watches, just waiting to display their allegiance to a terrible team from far away? Or was the percentage of comics readers in NYC so high that their response would justify a national ad?
And while we're on the subject, is "Mr. Met" the stupidest mascot ever?
Jumping back quickly to the Palisades ad, this new ride they're boasting about--
Wasn't that a Springsteen song?
We've all seen the many ads that ran for New Jersey's Palisades Amusement Park that ran in virtually every DC Comic of the era. I suppose on one hand, it's not that much different than an ad for Six Flags or Disney World, right? But then again, how many families across the country are going to plan the next family vacation to New Jersey, to a not terribly well-known amusement park, just because of a cheap ad in a comic book?And then you see this in the back of Jimmy Olsen #87 (1965):
A national ad to purchase a Mets watch? Really?At this point in their existence, only their fourth season, the Mets were one of the worst teams in the history of the world. Having lost a record 120 games in 1962, their first season, the Mets proceeded to stink up the joint, finishing 10th every season. In fact, they were so bad, they were always finished farther behind the ninth place team than the 5th place finished behind the 1st place team. That's bad.
I say this not to rag on the Mets (editors note: yes you do), but to put my question into perspective: outside of New York, what kind of demand could there have been for Mets merchandise? Were there really untold bazillions of closet Mets fans across the nation, bemoaning their lack of Mets watches, just waiting to display their allegiance to a terrible team from far away? Or was the percentage of comics readers in NYC so high that their response would justify a national ad?
And while we're on the subject, is "Mr. Met" the stupidest mascot ever?
Jumping back quickly to the Palisades ad, this new ride they're boasting about--
Wasn't that a Springsteen song?
3 comments:
My guess is that the ad rates were so cheap (and, perhaps, that rates for ads in NY-specific venues like the newspapers were so high) that the ad buy made sense for a lot of New York firms that wanted to reach New York kids.
But on a more serious note, the amount of people who got hooked on meth while riding the "crazy crystals" ride is extremely depressing. Is 85 cents really worth a lifetime of horrible addiction?
I can verify that it didn't work to beg your parents to take you to Jersey for the weekend from Kentucky! Just because of these ads mind you!
Post a Comment