'Quote Us and We'll Buy an Ad'

As editorial director of a regional magazine for five years, we got this kind of thing all the time--but never as intensely as in the last year. As "everyone is doing it" becomes more and more true, the pressure will only ratchet up. And it gets increasingly difficult to explain why it's a bad idea in the current "everything flows together" zeitgeist. I teach magazine journalism students now, and try to instill in them a strong sense of ethics around this issue. But I sometimes wonder if I'm setting them up to be perceived as dinosaurs when they get out into the working world, where the line is crossed all the time.

Matt, Good point on this and glad to hear there is still a line. I've recently come across the opposite problem. In our metro community a non-editorial person started a website and monthly print pub. She refuses to pay writers, but lets them pick their subjects - spa days, hair styles, local business ventures, restaurant reviews. The writers don't get comped any services (well, most of the time, but it seems they do try and are encouraged to by the publisher), but what those writers don't know is that then the publisher and sales staff follow-up with the featured businesses and harass them to no end to buy an ad. Expensive ads. Calls, visits and more calls for weeks on end, with a guilt trip about why they should buy after getting such a nice write-up. I think this publisher is a complete idiot and is ruining "journalism" in our community. And needless to say, I'm encouraging the writers to stay away from her because she's making them look bad.

I've found that many advertisers don't even realize they're asking for anything unusual (or they pretend not to) -- they think it's fine to ask for quotes/puffery in return for an ad. It took me awhile to realize the staggering ignorance that exists sometimes. Now, instead of instantly getting my back up at them (I can never hide it), I assume they just don't know any better and I give them an upbeat, friendly chat about church and state, why it serves a purpose and how it makes their advertising stronger. You'd be surprised how many people at least claim to have never heard this before, and how well it is so often received. It's a tactic that helps in the trenches day-to-day, and it keeps my angst down and my sales reps happier. (I mean, who wants editors fighting openly with ad prospects?) It doesn't always work --there are bullies and jerks out there, as we all know, and they need hardball tactics. But the "education" speech defuses many situations. Some people really know better, but pretend they don't, and then are embarrassed and back off. And for people who actually don't know any better, you might actually educate someone. I do have to say you can take church/state to extremes. Early in my career, editors where I worked (I was among them) wouldn't write about advertisers for fear of it being seen as favoritism. Honestly. So, if you bought an ad, you guaranteed yourself no editorial coverage. That sounds laughable now, and perhaps it would never happen today. Everything can be taken to extremes, so it's always important to listen to all sides. But fighting off requests/demands for puffery gets harder all the time, especially as more publishers cave. I'll probably retire in 5-7 years... perhaps just in time.

So glad to hear the request to "buy" editorial space still falls on deaf ears for some. I'm getting very worried -- particularly for the trade magazine world -- that the economy is going to let magazines bend their own rules. Can magazines afford to not do what advertisers want? I hope so. And to the magazine journalism teacher -- kudos to you for stressing ethics to your students. I don't think you are making them dinosaurs. I had a great business journalism teacher who did the best thing for us: She informed us that crossing the line was wrong. She also informed us that we WILL inevitably be asked to cross it. I think that's the best you can do!

As a sales manager for a few niche publications, I see prospects and clients try to get editorial coverage through our advertising account managers almost weekly; particularly prospects that aren't familiar with our strict separation policy. This is not much of a negative issue for us because we have a zero tolerance for blurring the lines. Each "rookie" account manager ends up learning it best the "hard way" where they ended up talking edit and sales together and then it blows up in their face hard when the client is not sourced or worse; they don't like what was written about them, but for the most part, it's a rare instance because of a few simple steps; 1) Each account manager is trained on our policy to keep adv and edit separte, 2) Clear expectations are set that we will not tolerate blurring the lines, 3) A "contact sheet" is provided that provides all editorial contacts, and 4) when the rookie blurs the lines, the sting is hard and reinforced with "I told you so". In my years on the job, I haven't seen an account manager get stung twice. They are allowed to "connect the dots" between the prospect/advertiser with dialogue and the editorial contact sheet but that is it. It's worked well and keeps clear expectations in front of the prospect/client, account manager, and editorial staff.