Rolling Stone….
Wanna see my picture on the cover
Wanna buy five copies for my mother
Wanna see my smiling face
On the cover of The Rolling Stone
Dr. Hook and the Medicine Show, 1972
The Cover of the Rolling Stone
Is all publicity good publicity?
Apparently that’s what the editorial staff of Rolling Stone magazine is banking on with their decision to put the Boston Marathon bomber on its cover. The magazine, with roots in music and rock and roll, also features in-depth stories and news about politics, movies and pop culture and is known for its provocative covers, usually of the most exciting, current and progressive musical artists of the day. There have been other controversial covers, for sure: Janet Jackson topless except for her breasts covered by a person hidden behind her; John Lennon nude and curled up next to his fully clothed wife; Christina Aguilera nude except for a strategically placed guitar; Kanye West dressed as Jesus on his way to be crucified all come to mind. Non-musicians have occasionally graced its cover too: President Obama, the Seinfeld cast, Steve Jobs. There was also one with the world’s most hated villain, “the most dangerous man alive,” Charles Manson featured on a 1970 cover.
So, this non-musician, accused murderer is not a first for Rolling Stone but it has created a firestorm like none before including consumer boycotts, retailers’ refusal to sell the issue and general social media buzz about the tasteless, insensitive decision to put a terrorist, looking like a rock start, on a cover which Dr. Hook sings about as representing the ultimate honor for musical artists.
Some say this move is a shameless publicity stunt because:
- If they wanted to generate readership for the article, they could have featured a Boston Marathon hero or survivor.
- There were big names on the other cover story articles that could have graced the cover – Willie Nelson, Jay-Z, Robin Thicke or Gary Clark Jr.
- There are lots of other people in the news and the music world who could have been showcased.
Some say this move is a brilliant publicity stunt because:
- It has propelled Rolling Stone into the top story everywhere – blogs; social media; newspapers; local, cable and network news.
- Sales may not suffer because most of their readers have subscriptions.
- It probably will not affect anything long-term.
And Rolling Stone, well they just want people to focus on the story, not the cover:
…The cover story we are publishing this week falls within the traditions of journalism and Rolling Stone’s long-standing commitment to serious and thoughtful coverage of the most important political and cultural issues of our day. The fact that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is young, and in the same age group as many of our readers, makes it all the more important for us to examine the complexities of this issue and gain a more complete understanding of how a tragedy like this happens. –THE EDITORS (Rolling Stone)
Of course, the actual story is the one thing lost in all of this and for the Rolling Stone editors, this might be their biggest regret.
Is this good publicity for Rolling Stone? We’d love to get your comments.
For daily marketing communications news, subscribe to LGK’s free, online, MarCom Digest. Maximize your momentum!