2005_08_billbrownnyer.jpgThe much ballysomething'd issue of The New Yorker with Target as the only advertiser hit the newsstands and mailboxes yesterday. As reported in the NY Times last week, Target wanted to do something more "breakthrough" to really pay off their "Pay Less, Expect More" mantra, and ended up buying an estimated $1.1 million of media to secure all the ad space in the New Yorker, which is cheap, considering the well-heeled audience and free publicity. But, we must join in the oft-repeated refrain, how about expecting a Target store in Manhattan, instead of just having models walk down Rockefeller Center or docking a temporary store at a pier? After all, if we can live with KMart, surely we can live with Target. [Some of related: The Village Voice on New Yorkers protesting any kind of Wal-Mart in the city.]

Anyway, what do you think of the ads? Designer Michael Bierut writes about the "unnerving" effect of the ads, adding that he counted over 200 Target logos in the first 19 pages before giving up. Gothamist actually liked them, because we knew which pages were actual editorial since they weren't festooned with red and white bull's eyes. And it was like having a capitalistic fever dream, in a world when buildings, teams, and maybe even cities will be branded. Oh, wait, that might still happen.

Two books that touch on a branded world order: The wonderful Pattern Recognition by William Gibson and Jennifer Government by Max Barry. Target doesn't seem to have any place on its website that shows all the New Yorker ads they commissioned, which is surprising since the ads are only to run once, but perhaps Target thinks the ads need to be experience in situ. You can, however, see their TV advertising on Channel Red.

Target ad for The New Yorker by Bill Brown