Marketers Force Media to Relinquish Integrity

Write Nice Things Or Else

It seems BP (more accurately BP's agency MindShare who crafted BP's stringent "zero-tolerance policy") and Morgan Stanley have everybody's panties in a bunch over their recently publicized ad policies stipulating their right to pull ad schedules based on disagreeable editorial content. Ad Age has skewered the announcements, writing, "Shame on BP. And shame on Morgan Stanley and General Motors and any other advertisers involved in assaults on editorial integrity and independence. By wielding their ad budgets as weapons to beat down newsrooms, these companies threaten the bond that media properties have with their audiences, the very thing that gives media their value to advertisers to begin with."

We're none too pleased either. But, for all the reaction these announcements have received, there's nothing all that new. Policies such as these have been around forever. They've just never brazenly been made public. And that's the issue.

An advertiser has every right to create agreements, though not as harsh as BP's/Mindshare's, just as publishers have requirements for advertisers. Barring the harm it does to editorial integrity, as long as both sides agree, it's all good. Our concern, in addition the agreements themselves, is with the publication of these policies. When policies such as this are out there for all to see, it effectively results in BP and Morgan Stanley having near complete control over what is written about them leaving the public to wonder if anything written about them is true. Sure, a news organization can say "screw it" to their ad dollars but we all know that's unlikely. Aside from this scenario placing publishers over a barrel at the whim of marketers, these policies and general knowledge of them destroy trust. While it common knowledge that nothing is ever completely unbiased, calling attention to it in this manner just raises further concern over editorial integrity.

One could argue complete disclosure of policies such as this are a good thing. Everyone's in the know and there are no hidden agendas. But these announcements, along with a whole host of other issues continue to chip away at the nirvana of separation of church and sate that, at least in theory, grants the perception, if not the reality of honesty, uninfluenced by marketer money.

In a way, these policies are analogous to the proliferation of product placement, which in a recent episode of The Apprentice, caused Donald Trump to be forced by a marketer to add a voiceover to an episode making up for negative comments about said marketer in a previous episode. It all begs a lot of questions - who control editorial content? Who's telling the story? Who's reporting the news? Who can we believe? Is anything untainted? Toss in a bit of buzz marketing, and one wonders if it's just time to bend over and let marketers mount complete control over one's life and the editorial integrity of the media.

by Steve Hall    May-24-05   Click to Comment   
Topic: Magazine, Newspaper, Opinion, Policy   

Enjoy what you've read? Subscribe to Adrants Daily and receive the daily contents of this site each day along with free whitepapers.



Some day advertisers....just like companies who want to be ALLOWED to sell their product to Wal-mart....will be kissing ass very soon for the exact same opportunity they are being almighty about right now. Paradigms are changing.

The consumer will take total control over advertising very shortly. Tivo, ipod, an ad blocker for radio (pauses live radio till after commercials), complete disregard for billboards, buses, taxi. Word of mouth.....usually pretty bad and subjective. Web...we all know where those ads are headed...blocked.

Hand held PRINT is still safe. You can have the print material online....but people love to read while taking a crap. Big budgets better stay friendly....real opportunities are going to become rare.

Posted by: kab on May 25, 2005 3:30 PM