I would like to end the public debate about flexibility in the national press. My letter seems to have stirred up a hornets' nest, which in some respects is probably a good thing as this issue is now on the agenda.
I would, however, like to clarify that my comment was in relation to challenging conventional display space available in national newspapers - do the readers think that stacked up 25x4s, 20x2s, etc illustrate any more editorial integrity than fireplaces, U shapes, L shapes or indeed a strip through the middle of the spread? It appears there is a difference of opinion here.
With regard to achieving cut through in other ways, such as more integrated pieces of work, I couldn't agree more with David Roddick (Lack of imagination on creative advertising, December 12, page 16). Budgetary considerations aside, this is obviously a very effective way to communicate tonally with readers.
The Telegraph Group has strategically answered our DaimlerChrysler Creative media briefs delivering unique creative solutions. They, in turn, also won industry awards for their work. And, working with the Guardian/ Observer commercial development team, we created a sports supplement with the look and feel of OSM, publishing the best 50 sports photographs as voted by readers and a panel of sporting judges. This was incredibly successful and truly embraced the product offering.
David Roddick expressed alarm at the fact that a board director of a progressive media agency defines creative use of press as coming up with a new ad shape. As I explained, this was used as an illustration to support this issue. The main tenet is that we need to consider challenging convention on occasion and explore alternative ways to cost-effectively increase potential impact for clients' print campaigns while maintaining editorial integrity.
Tara Marus Board director BJK&E Media