As has been widely reported, the Canadian government and various provincial tourism agencies have bought all the ads in the current New Yorker, presumably on the assumption that the New Yorker’s demographic is the most likely to connect the fact of the G20 to future travel or investment plans.
The 80-page issue has approximately 22 pages of ads, all but a few of which are government sponsored (there are a handful of private-sector ads with a Canadian slant, including one for a bank, an investment advisor and an elite private school). Four of the ads depicit images of Toronto, but only one – the full-pager purchased by Tourism Toronto – actually dares to mention the city by name.
More typical are the ads with photos of Bay Street’s bank towers over upbeat copy about the stability of Canada’s financial system. The Ontario government owns the inside back cover, featuring a glamour shot of the OCAD building on a bright evening. “You don’t have to go far to broaden your horizons,” reads the headline.
The text continues: “Close to home and a world away, Ontario awaits. Thrill to architectural delights from Will Alsop’s award-winning expansion of the Ontario College of Art & Design and Frank Gehry’s sensuous transformation of the Art Gallery of Ontario to Daniel Libeskind’s provocative Michael Lee-Chin Crystal at the Royal Ontario Museum. With new discoveries around every corner, there’s always more to see…”
Would that be a corner in, uh, London, or Kingston? Maybe Sudbury’s sensuous Frank Gehry building? If you didn’t know you were looking at Toronto, the ad certainly doesn’t give it up. All this cultural bounty, one is led to understand, can be found in “Ontario.” (To be fair, the Quebec government doesn’t mention Montreal or Quebec City in ads clearly set in both cities.)
Now, back to the Tourism Toronto ad. The headline — “Business, meet pleasure” — is clever enough. Then there’s the obligatory skyline shot, plus one of those glamourous-young-couple images I associate with just about every condo ad.
But what’s with the third of the page depicting…Niagara Falls? Who knew it was so close by? I would have taken the kids more often. God knows there’s nothing else to do here except make money.
By contrast, Ottawa — plugged by the two senior levels of government in two sideways full-page ads — seems not to suffer from a case of politically induced stage fright. The capital’s name is up in lights, with fairly specific information about what the city has to offer (no risk of that kind of depth in the Tourism Toronto ad).
Best of all is the back cover, with three hip looking people dining outside, incongruously enough, at the foot of the TD Bank tower, a spot where there are no outdoor bistros, last I checked. The word “Toronto” is, as per usual, MIA.
Under the photo are two fake Twitter-type postings, the second of which reads, “TdotTom: Did you check out all the old buildings. Great architecture!”
I would have, T-dot, but I just didn’t know where to look….
photo by Miles Storey
14 comments
Thank you John!
The Niagara Falls pictures and that hilarious text conversation have bothered me since I picked up the New Yorker.
“Did you check out all the old buildings” – This sounds like something that a Grade 7 would write on a field trip.
John: I think the bistro depicted is Bymark’s outdoor space.
“But what’s with the third of the page depicting…Niagara Falls?”
This came up on TOist as well, and I didn’t get it there either. Niagara Falls is only an hour’s drive away (obv. if you don’t go during rush hour). The possibility of going there as a good day trip or overnighter is totally going to work in TO’s favour for anyone coming from farther away parts, so why not?
Vancouver plugs it’s proximity to Whistler fairly often in the touristy ads, and that’s totally a good reason to visit Vancouver.
Heck, I’m gonna add to that.. There’s even public transit going there from Toronto that you can bring your bike on. It doesn’t get much more local than that around here.. You SHOULD take your kids more often, Mr. Lorinc. 🙂
Niagara Falls *is* that close to Toronto. On a clear still morning, the mist from the Falls can be clearly seen from the Queen car.
There are surprisingly many people for whom the Falls is the major attraction, and Toronto is the handiest base and/or transit point.
The Falls are a huge tourist attraction for many foreign visitors. Most of my relatives in Nigeria want to come see the Falls when they visit Toronto.
Some want to do so when they visit Vancouver. Not everyone knows how big the country is.
This is similar to the way Pittsburgh is promoted, using Falling Water as attraction.
New Yorkers will probably be able to identify Toronto from the photos. If the ads were in Asian media, I’d be concerned as I’m sure people there know less about Toronto.
Still, the point is a good one. Why not mention Toronto overtly? It’s a reprehensible reality. We’re either slandered in other parts of Canada or downplayed.
The falls aren’t that far. And the last time I had a European relative in town the only tourist things we did were the CN Tower and Niagara Falls.
The ads are lame in so many ways. I don’t have an issue with showing the falls as an attraction *but* if you are only going to show three images to illustrate Toronto’s great charms then having them be: the falls, the skyline, and a drunken couple cavorting in a limo shows a real lack of imagination. The implication is that the only thing that distinguishes Toronto from any other city with a skyline is that you can get to the falls. Sigh. I can only assume that there is a lot of graft going on with the money spent for an advertising budget. And I have to say that, as a native new Yorker, the only ads that would appeal to me *at all* would be the New Brunswick one, which at least is scenic. Ugh.
Much of the Spacing readership would probably love to take an urban travel experience to Berlin, Curitiba or Portland, but we’re just one demographic segment that consumes tourism and travel products. I think for the urban tourist, no city in Ontario is a major destination even compared with Montréal and Vancouver. Toronto just happens to have the big airport close to the family-friendly CN Tower and Niagara Falls. I doubt Parisians go to Versailles every other Saturday.
I’ve presented Tourism Toronto ads as a discussion opener in a Regional Planning seminar I took last fall for my master’s at York. It can be a good reflection of how a city brands its perceived strengths, yet problematic when considered by conscientious, local urbanists.
Besides, I’m sure the media firms the Province hired are located south of Bloor (“SoBlo” for all the Manhattaphiles on here) and don’t stage much photography in Kitchener or Thunder Bay.
It’s a fascinating scenario we have. The people who live and work in Toronto pump billions in unspent tax revenue to support the rest of Ontario and Canada, yet we are considered a liability to the rest of the nation. Without Toronto there would be significant tax increases or service cuts across much of the nation.
My thesis is that this is in part due to misunderstandings. We are significantly bigger than all but two other city regions in Canada , so things seem out of scale to those in smaller cities and especially small towns. Things good and bad happen at a level hard for many to comprehend. I also think that many outside the GTA think that we are one big single demographic – where we really are a city of villages (neighbourhoods) – each slightly different than the other. (E.g. Can anyone truly say that Haliburton, Fenelon Falls and Bobcaygeon are exactly the same)? In many ways Toronto has people just like people in these small towns. The difference being that is that we also have people who are not like small town people, and they tend to make the news more than the bid city small towners (millionaires, gothes etc are not as prominent in small towns.)
Bruce I would love to see how you calculated this ” The people who live and work in Toronto pump billions in unspent tax revenue to support the rest of Ontario and Canada”
Tourism in Toronto would be a great Spacing issue.