I seem to recall David Sutton (or perhaps it was Bob) explaining that the FT is often tied by advertising space purchased as a block with Bizarre and Viz.
I'm unsure as to how much direct control the FT team have over the advertising in the magazine.
Personally, I don't give a monkies. Advertisers surely only pay for the adverts if they get a decent return. Its all well and good people saying "I'm insulted to be within the demographic" - but the fact that there are repeat adverts from the "funny" t-shirt manafacturer and all the drug emporiums suggests that their demographic exists in significant numbers within the FT readership.
If nobody bought the stuff - it wouldn't be advertised. So, someone is buying it - perhaps have a pop at them instead of the FT management?
An advert cannot hurt anyone - commercial reality would suggest that if nobody buys FoD - it will not be advertised again.
I just hope nobody buys it.
Following on from that - I do wonder what the demography of readership actually is? I don't recall a question on the annual questionairre relating to my taste in "funny" t-shirts and drug taking.
In any case, it seems fairly obvious that the FT readership demographic is not of interest to manafacturers of People Carriers, 4x4 school run vehicles and Magnet kitchens!
This is all reminiscent of the complaints about game reviews. It is fairly obvious that the game review section (1-2 pages maximum) allows advertising space to be filled with game adverts - inoffensive and perhaps lucrative. Yet, the complaints about games reviews continue... (for the record - I do not play computer games - have no interest in them - and do not read the reviews - but it is only 1-2 pages!).