What would you do in this situation? Please weigh in with your responses.


Look for our article . . .

Your magazine runs editorial content submitted from industry practitioners. No money changes hands, advertising does not have any say in placement/content, and no article can include a direct reference to any company or proprietary product.

An advertiser that sometimes submits articles for publication has hinted that its ads will now include reference to its articles within the publication (e.g., "Look for our article on page 47"). The advertising department is afraid that if the publication turns down this request, it will lose a large advertiser.

How would you advise your advertising department colleagues to handle this advertiser?


Note: this scenario, based on real-life experiences, was developed by Ira Pilchen, editor, American Bar Association, and Tony Stasiek, editor, Scotsman Publishing Inc., for the 2006 ASBPE Editorial Conference. Visit www.asbpe.org/about/code.htm to read about the group's Code of Ethics.

Absolutely not. If you guarantee to the advertiser that its article will appear on a specific page in an issue so it can be mentioned in its ad, that's the same as selling the editorial space. Maybe the editor should explain to the advertiser how such a link in the ad would sully the apparant quality of the editorial and reduce readership of it. If the advertiser wants to ensure its article will run, it should purchase more ad space and publish it as an 'advertorial' with an Advertisement heading above it. I can't see any major advertiser jumping ship because a publication adheres to a certain standard of editorial ethics.

The editor should handle contacting the advertiser; it should not be left up to the advertising department.

She or he should explain that this practice only detracts from the benefit they gain by authoring the piece. Writing a informative piece for the magazine shows readers that you are an industry expert. Referring to it in an ad makes it look more like an advertorial, and lessens its impact.

Hopefully, this kind of rational approach will make sense to even the most uninformed marketing people.

Yikes, heck no...

We work pretty hard at keeping ad side in the dark. Our offices are physically separated, and discussions of upcoming content is sanitized for their protection.

Even our design parameters are consciously different. An advertorial cannot be similar to edit copy: different fonts, different headers and footers and always marked "Advertising" on every page in large type.

I have found that the sales people rather prefer this kind of distance. It's the ultimate cover story, a kind of plausible denial approach they can use without worry with any client. "Sorry, won't be able to help you with editorial..."

I tell them: Sell the readers, not the writers. We occasionally get new sales people who have to get broken in, but they adapt pretty quickly, then get used to the insulation and get to like it. Not *always* but they don't give me too much grief about it.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Greg,

Quick followup question:

A few replies here suggest placing a body-text-size "ADVERTISEMENT" or "PROMOTION" banner atop an advertorial or an ad page that closely resembles editorial.

ABM, ASBPE, ASME and other trade organizations recommend similar top-of-page placement in their ethics codes.

Is this enough? Will this distinction alone will prevent reader confusion?

Personally, I know I've read through a few paid advertorials (especially in city/regional and business magazines) with befuddlement before noticing the "fine print." As a magazine with a larger trim size (10.5" by 14.5") we also periodically struggle with the potential that the lone "PAID ADVERTISEMENT" banner could be lost on a physically larger page.

On the other hand, it's not as though we as editors go out of our way to slap the words "EDITORIAL" above any and all nonpaid content.

Any thoughts or opinions are much appreciated.

Thanks,
Tony Stasiek
Scotsman Publishing Inc.

Tony,

Ninety-nine percent of readers absolutely cannot tell (and likely do not care) the difference between edit and ad. Only editors and designers notice, and only editors care.

Yet I don't think advertisers buy advertorial copy because they think they can "fool" the reader. They buy in because they think it will cut through clutter, help them reach the B2B reader, or simply out of vanity, of wanting coverage they probably won't get for various legitimate editorial reasons (off-focus, too narrow, not news, etc.).

For every advertorial that sells, you need a buyer who thinks it's a good idea and a seller who wants the commission or is trying to close a bigger deal by nearly giving it away. That's no great sin, I suppose, and there's little edit can do to stop it at this stage, other than trying to enforce some kind of rules to keep advertorials from aping edit outright.

We make it clear to our advertisers that they in no way have any influence over editorial. All editorial is subject to its news/education value and nothing else. We have lost adverts because of this stand but they always come back after a while because the magazine maintains its editorial integrity and readers.
To answer the question, our sales staff know they may not even entertain the thought of discusing or referring editorial questions to staff writers. Should the client wish to persue the issue he/she must go to the editor or publisher direct.

quote:

Ninety-nine percent of readers absolutely cannot tell (and likely do not care) the difference between edit and ad. Only editors and designers notice, and only editors care.

I cannot believe this quote from Greg. Of course, most readers can tell, and if they read an article that is marketing hype then it will turn them off to the magazine. If an editor does not believe readers can tell the difference then why would that editor demand a church/state separation?