ADVERTISEMENT



ASME is Really, Really Mad About Ads on Covers—And You Should Be, Too

An ethics professor weighs in on a troubling newsstand trend.


Jeffrey L. Seglin By Jeffrey L. Seglin
04/17/2009 -12:44 PM






Listen, I’m a writer and I’d like to make some money. The economic downturn has forced me to be creative in how I generate income since a number of the outlets I used to be able to count on for income have disappeared. Since some of the stuff I write appears online, why not link particular words to advertisers’ Web sites in exchange for a bit of incremental compensation?

The technology to do it certainly exists. But am I ready to risk having my readers begin to think that I’m deliberately choosing topics or words to pump up my advertising links? Once my reader believes my edit copy is no different from a paid advertisement, do I lose credibility as an editorial source?

What do I care if the ethics codes for my industry strictly forbid me from including such links in my writing? The only consequence of such violations in the past has been a stern talking to and a ban from my industry’s annual awards competition. Awards are nice. But cash pays the bills.

While I need to figure out new ways to generate income, am I really willing to risk sacrificing the credibility I have with readers?

Magazines are in a similar boat. Consumer magazines, guided by the American Society of Magazine Editors’ ethics guidelines, have long held sacred the line between advertising and editorial. Selling the cover to an advertiser is strictly off limits.

But facing a severe advertising downturn, some magazines have done just that.

As soon as they blur the line between editorial and advertising, however, the game changes. If that clarity disappears, readers may begin to wonder which portions of the content of consumer magazines are independent editorial and which are driven by advertisers.

Why Magazines Should Care

Some readers may not care much about this distinction. But the magazines should.

When Us Weekly, ESPN the Magazine and Scholastic Parent and Child recently incorporated advertising elements with their covers, ASME took them each to task. ASME even saw fit to issue a new statement on its Web site addressing the issue: "Advertising on the cover suggests editorial endorsement of advertised products, indicates that editorial coverage is for sale and threatens editorial independence."

Over the years, however, the consequences of violating ASME’s code have not been great and, even in healthier advertising climates, a blind eye has been turned to some notable offenders. By not following through on stern statements, it’s difficult to see how much teeth the ASME guidelines have.

Even without the bite, magazines should care about maintaining a clear distinction between editorial and advertising if they want to keep credibility with their readers. If readers, facing the same economic pinch as magazines, are seeking to shed some of their long-time subscriptions, then their loyalty is likely to fade first with those publications whose integrity they can no longer trust. Why pay good money to receive or read a publication where it’s unclear if you’re reading independent editorial or a message underwritten by an advertiser?

Are the covers of consumer magazines sacred? I don’t believe so. No more than the front pages of newspaper sections are off limits from clearly-defined advertisements placed among the news or feature articles. There’s always an outcry when another major newspaper starts engaging in this practice that seems to quickly die down when readers recognize that these advertisements are distinct from and don’t influence the editorial. Not an optimal solution, perhaps, but one that apparently can be done well without sacrificing independence.

If magazines want to explore new models for generating income, they should be encouraged to do as creatively as possible. But they’d be wise to make sure that whatever they do doesn’t violate a trust with their readers. They should work to maintain a clear line between editorial and advertising, recognizing that the decisions they make now to shore up their franchise doesn’t erode the quality of the product.

Perhaps instead of stern lectures and statements, ASME should find a way to work with magazines to develop new models that work for everyone.

RELATED LINKS





Jeffrey L. Seglin By Jeffrey L. Seglin -- Jeffrey L. Seglin (jseglin@post.harvard.edu) writes a weekly syndicated ethics column called ("The Right Thing") for the New York Times Syndicate. He is an associate professor at Emerson College where he teaches writing, editing and professional ethics.

Post Comment / Discuss This Blog - Info/Rules

Why is it that only old white guys care about mag cover ads?
Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 04/17/2009 - 13:14.

I agree with the final few grafs here, but the headline is misleading ... an editorial/advertising divide definitely is important, but as Mr. Seglin states, consumer-magazine covers are not sacred. Frankly, I do not believe that ESPN the Magazine's content is in any way shaped by Gatorade, which purchased the ad depicted in the cover. Does anyone?!?
Madam, we’ve already established what kind of woman you are...
Submitted by Michael Turro on Fri, 04/17/2009 - 15:08.

If you are reliant upon advertising for your very existence isn't it a little late to be talking about the ad/edit divide? The minute you take that first page of advertising you're already "that type of girl" so why fight it? Any half smart reader can figure out that the only way you're able to do the kind of journalism you do is because of the ad riding along with the article - and they're OK with that. Your content is already sponsored, so if you link out from the article for money, or put an ad on the cover or do any of the other nefarious things the out of touch ASME find so tragic, what's the difference? Your readers are smart - if you sell out they'll know. If you start giving them press releases instead of real journalism they'll know. Authenticity resonates - shilling for an advertiser does not - let the editorial itself be the wall and let the reader do what they do best - discern what's real and what's pure product oriented BS.
But seriously
Submitted by Michael Turro on Fri, 04/17/2009 - 15:27.

My previous comment may have been a bit of the devil's advocate in me coming out, but my main point is that the idea of a singular ethics body (like ASME) setting the ground rules for the massive variety of publications out there is just plain unworkable. Am I the only one here that finds the notion that news oriented mags like Time or Newsweek should have the same ethical standards as titles like ESPN or Field and Stream to be laughable?
Keeping edit separate from ads is really good business!
Submitted by Calvin Trout on Sat, 04/18/2009 - 08:42.

I've been on the space peddling side of things for years than I wish to admit. Advertisers are always trying to put the squeeze on magazines and commercializing editorial has been a favorite tactic. Ethics argument aside, the sad truth is that once your editorial has been compromised, editorial readership is lost. Lost readership translates into less time spent per issue which translates into fewer opportunities for ads to be seen, noted, and read. Once that happens, then comes a host of advertiser complaints about how your magazine doesn't pull for them. Giving advertisers what they really want is responsive readers. Responsive readers are involved readers. Great editorial that reaches readers' greatest interests and concerns is the best solution for all concerned. It's just good business!
ads on covers challenge editorial judgment
Submitted by Lockie Hunter on Sat, 04/18/2009 - 20:57.

We recently began to run 'advertorials' on the front page of the real estate section of my hometown paper, and the public outcry was exceptional. Readers do notice, and then they begin to question the editorial judgment of the balance of the paper. Ads on the front covers feel like an implied endorsement. As a production manager for business-to-business titles for many years, I was alert to the daily push for advertisers to gain advantage and commercialize editorial, but there are other ways around this. (French door covers for instance) which allow the actual front cover to remain ad free. The front cover has always been sacred and should remain so.
While you're at it: Tell the advertiser's to lay off too.
Submitted by Elian on Sun, 04/19/2009 - 09:40.

I agree with Michael Turro's Madamesque comment, but not that the reader is so savvy as to figure it out. Advertisers don't want you to figure out that your purchase was their idea, any more than they want a publication to cast even a flea's shadow of doubt on their products. When Mr Seglin, whose field is ethics (!) writes "What do I care if the ethics codes for my industry strictly forbid me..." (perhaps a devil's advocate in doing so,) then we see the problematic business paradigm in action: so much of business and its navigation has become a numbing number activity that few are left connected to their gut, where resides one's ethical compass as well as the courage to take the hit rather than compromise the quality of one's character. Real journalism still exists, but in spite of advertising. Anyone who cares about news and opinions today has to sift for themselves as to what is really going on. News is reality by way of "n" hands, whereas living occurs at first hand.
My point exactly
Submitted by Michael Turro on Sun, 04/19/2009 - 10:32.

Everything Calvin says in the above comment is absolutely true. The thing is, the only people capable of knowing where the wall should be and when it is breached in an unacceptable way are the readers and editorial staff of the publication in question. Different magazines will have different tolerances in what they and their readers will consider to be too far. To have a toothless body like the ASME trying to impose a standard guideline is just not realistic. In attempting to do so they are in effect harming the ability of many magazines to build profitable businesses. If they want to continue to be relevant the ASME needs to loosen or abolish their guidelines, climb down from the ivory tower, start engaging real readers, and show the industry that they understand how the editorial universe is dramatically and rapidly expanding.
Why stop with being irrate about ads on magazine covers?
Submitted by Rex Hammock on Mon, 04/20/2009 - 07:48.

Has anyone seen those front page ads on the Wall Street Journal and New York Times? Let's get irrate about them, also. Ban articles appearing in those papers from consideration for Pulitzer prizes, maybe. What about ads on the front page of every magazine and news website on the Internet? Let's get irrate about them. My point: With all the real problems facing the magazine industry, why are you wasting time on this. Most important thing: Readers are not stupid.
The problem goes way beyond covers
Submitted by Harriet Brown on Mon, 04/20/2009 - 10:29.

Ads on the covers of magazines are terrible--no doubt about it. But they're only the most visible example of a process that's been going on for years. When I became the editorial director of a small regional magazine, in 2003, I was horrified by the quid pro quo many advertisers asked for and were given. How many times did I heard the phrase "I'll buy an ad if you guarantee us editorial coverage"? Many many times. Even worse, though, was our publisher's lemming-like rush to give away as much editorial as possible to attract those advertisers. And he was hardly alone. Every day in the magazine classes I now teach at the Newhouse School I point out violations of the ad/edit wall to my students, from adjacencies to unmarked advertorial to product placement. The list grows longer every day. Discerning readers have been losing trust in magazines for years now. It takes cover ads to get the rest to pay attention. Shakespeare said it best, in Othello: "Who steals my purse steals trash. . . . But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him, and makes me poor indeed." We are all becoming poorer indeed.
Asme hypocrites
Submitted by Anonymous Dos on Mon, 04/20/2009 - 10:38.

One perennial National Mag Award nominee (in '08 and '09) comes with a music cd on which most of the artists have to pay to be on. Some of the artists get coverage in the magazine. The magazine doesn't tell its readers that it sells space on the cd. Their readers think the cd selections are based on the personal taste of the editors. Such trickery clearly goes against Asme rules and in '08 Asme was informed of the violation. But not only didn't they act on that knowlegde, they allow this publication to be nominated. Why should anybody listen to Asme hypocrites prattle on about ethics?
Where is the backlash directed at the advertisers?
Submitted by DrunkRobot on Mon, 04/20/2009 - 12:52.

All of the criticism regarding cover ads has been directed at the magazines who accepted them. To a point, rightfully so. But I haven't read or heard one bit of criticism directed at the advertisers and ad agencies who also played a part? Why not? When will begin questioning their ethics? This analogy may offend some but it's appropriate: One method used by law enforcement to fight prostitution is to "shame" the men who take advantage of the situation the women are in. To deter future abuses, the police publish photos of both the prostitute and their clients in local papers. Both parties broke the law so they equally share the blame. A re-examination of the ethical issues involved with accepting paid advertising is long overdue. But let's not ignore the 800 lb. gorilla in the room while the debate takes place. For far too long, advertisers have been ready, willing and able to compromise the integrity of any vehicle willing to accept it. If we are searching for methods to prevent further abuses, there must be consequences for both parties involved. Personally I will no longer use or buy the products being sold by the advertisers who ran the cover ads. If the readers joined together and clearly communicated that message to both the publishers and advertisers, a line in the sand would be drawn for both.
Cover ads are the symptom, not the disease
Submitted by The Digitalists on Mon, 04/20/2009 - 17:20.

Arguing over cover/front-page ads per se is kind of like arguing over the merits of high-fructose corn syrup. It's not that HFCS is so much worse than sugar, it's that its presence in a product is a good signifier that it contains lots of other stuff that's bad for you. I think too many edit people fetishize the "church-state" divide and forget that it's a means to an end: preserving editorial integrity and serving the needs of readers. I blogged on this issue a few months ago when the Times started running front-page ads: http://thedigitalists.com/2009/01/21/all-the-ads-fit-to-print
How are readers served???
Submitted by Kely on Tue, 04/21/2009 - 11:40.

So how exactly are readers served with the melding of ad/edit, church/state? Not at all, but sadly, most of them don't realize it. I am misserved regularly by "travel" magazines that list the great restaurants in a city; only I know, since I'm in the business, that probably half of them are ONLY in the list because they have ads in. Or a fashion magazine that touts a cool new product, but I know now that it's not necessarily good, or worthy of my time, it's only that the advertising department thinks the manufacturer is a good client. Solid publishers have understood this for a long time, and realize that you are selling the readership, not the editorial pages. Too many supposedly savvy young things really DON'T get the fact that readers like me are going to stop buying advertising blather; I want to trust the opinions, and that's a reader/editorial relationship that lasts.
Ads on the cover
Submitted by MIX IT UP on Wed, 04/22/2009 - 00:10.

Covers are all about the editorial. There is plenty of room inside the magazine for ad space. I can see how this is appealing to publications, having a cover ad means more money, the way the economy is but I don't think this should be done. www.mixitupmagazine.com mixitupmagazine.wordpress.com twitter.com/mixitupmagazine
Ads on covers
Submitted by Jason Fell on Wed, 04/22/2009 - 08:27.

For more on this, check out the conversation at mediaPRO: http://mediapro.foliomag.com/forum/topics/ads-on-covers-theyre-doing-it
Enough already
Submitted by Mark on Wed, 04/22/2009 - 16:16.

I am sick of the whining emanating from the editorial ranks about this while kicking their own dirt under the rug. Those that sell these ads and don't demarcate them well will get punished by readers who are always smarter than anyone gives them credit or by others in the business crying "line crosser!" The worst kept secret in publishing is the arm twisting advertisers get away with to get 'ink' as well as the lunching / drinking / cajoling that goes on in a "PR" capacity to get clients coverage. I would posit that at least the advertising is more honest and discernable. Still not convinced? Which is worse: a cover ad sold to an advertiser that is not credited or a photoshopped cover photo that is not credited as such? Two words: OJ, Newsweek.

RECENTLY in Editorial dots icon

MOST READ on FOLIOdots icon

FOLIO: Alerts & Newslettersdots icon

Sign up for our news alerts, special offers & feature updates:



FOLIO: Alerts
Breaking news & industry updates

FOLIO: Publishing Technology
The Latest on Trends, Issues & Products (2x Monthly)

FOLIO: Special Promos
Special offers & announcements from Partners, Sponsors & Red 7 Media

FOLIO: Update
Webinar, content & service feature updates



CONNECT WITH FOLIO: NOW
   


CAREER CENTER dots icon

Latest Featured Jobs