Unformatted text preview:

THEby Russ BakerSOME MAJOR ADVERTISERS STEP UP THEPRESSURE ON MAGAZINES TO ALTER THEIRCONTENT, WILL EDITORS BEND?In an effort to avoid potential conflicts,it is required that Chrysler Corporationbe alerted in advance of any and all edi-torial content that encompasses sexual,political, social issues or any editorialthat might be construed as provocativeor offensive. Each and every issue thatcarries Chrysler advertising requires aWritten summary outlining majortheme/articles appearing in upcomingissues. These summaries are to be for-Warded to PentaCorn prior to closing inorder to give Ch ysler ample time to re-view and reschedule if desired. . . As ac-knowledgement of this letter we ask thatYou or a representative from the publi-cation sign below and return to us nolater than February 15.-from a letter sent by Chrysler’sad agency PentaCorn, a divisionof BBDO North America, to atleast fifty magazines-Russ Baker is a free-lance writer wholives in New York. His last piece for CJR,in the March/April issue, was aboutthe Food Lion v. ABC trial.Is there any doubt that advertisersmumble and sometimes roar aboutreporting that can hurt them?That the auto giants don’t likepieces that, say point to auto safetyproblems? Or that Big Tobacco hatesto see its glamorous, cheerful adsjuxtaposed with articles mentioningtheir best customers’ grim way ofdeath? When advertisers disapproveof an editorial climate, they can-and sometimes do take a hike.But for Chrysler to push beyondits parochial economic interests bydemanding summaries of upcomingarticles while implicitly asking edi-tors to think twice about running“sexual, political, social issues”-crosses a sharply defined line. “Thisis new,“ says Milton Glaser, the NewYork magazine co-founder and cele-brated designer. “It will have a dev-astating effect on the idea of a freepress and of free inquiry.”Glaser is among those in the presswho are vocally urging editors andpublishers to resist. “If Chryslerachieves this,” he says, “there is noreason to hope that other advertiserswon’t ask for the same privilege.You will have thirty or forty adver-tisers checking through the pages.They will send notes to publishers.I don’t see how any good citizendoesn’t rise to this occasion and saythis development is un-Americanand a threat to freedom.”Hyperbole? Maybe not. Just aboutany editor will tell you: the ad/editchemistry is changing for the worse.Corporations and their ad agencieshave clearly turned up the heat on edi-tors and publishers, and some maga-zines are capitulating, unwilling to riskeven a single ad. This makes it tougherfor those who do fight to maintain thead-edit wall and put the interests oftheir readers first. Consider:+ A major advertiser recently ap-proached all three newsweeklies-Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News-andtold them it would be closely moni-toring editorial content. So says ahigh newsweekly executive whowas given the warning (but whowould not name the advertiser). For4 + A WORD FROM OUR SPONSORthe next quarter, the advertiserwarned the magazines’ publishingsides, it would keep track of how thecompany’s industry was portrayedin news columns. At the end of thatperiod, the advertiser would selectone-and only one-of the magazinesand award all of its newsweekly ad-vertising to it.+ An auto manufacturer-notChrysler-decided recently to playart director at a major glossy, and themagazine played along. After themagazine scheduled a photo spreadthat would feature more bare skinthan usual, it engaged in aback-and-forth negotiation with that adver-tiser over exactly how much skinwould be shown. CJR’s source saysthe feature had nothing to do withthe advertiser’s product.+ Kimberly-Clark makes Huggiesdiapers and advertises them in a num-ber of magazines, including Child,American Baby, Parenting, Parents,Baby Talk, and Sesame Street Parents.Kimberly-Clark demands-in writ-ing in its ad insertion orders-thatthese ads be placed only “adjacentto black and white happy baby edi-torial,” which would definitely notinclude stories about, say, SuddenInfant Death Syndrome or Down’ssyndrome. “Sometimes we have tocreate editorial that is satisfactory tothem,” a top editor says. That, ofcourse, means something else islikely lost, and the mix of the maga-zine is altered.+ Former Cosmo Girl Helen GurleyBrown disclosed to News&y that aDetroit auto company representative(the paper didn’t say which com-pany) asked for-and received-anadvance copy of the table of contentsfor her bon voyage issue, thenthreatened to pull a whole series ofads unless the representative waspermitted to see an article titled“How to Be Very Good in Bed.” Re-sult? “A senior editor and the cli-ent’s ad agency pulled a few thingsfrom the piece” a dispirited Brownrecalled, “but enough was left” tosalvage the article.Cosmo is hardly the only magazinethat has bowed to the new winds.Kurt Andersen, the former New Yorkmagazine editor-whose 1996 firingby parent company K-III was widelyperceived to be a result of storiesthat angered associates of K-III’sfounder, Henry R. Kravisnonethe-less says that he always kept adver-tisers’ sensibilities in mind whenediting the magazine. “Because Iworked closely and happily with thepublisher at Nezu York, I was awarewho the big advertisers were,” hesays. “My antennae were turned on,and I read copy thinking, ‘Is this go-ing to cause Calvin Klein orBergdorf big problems?’ mNational Review put a reverse spinon the early-warning-for-advertisersdiscussion recently, as The Washing-ton Post revealed, when its advertis-ing director sent an advance copy ofa piece about utilities deregulationto an energy supplier mentioned inthe story, as a way of luring it intobuying space.And Chrysler is hardly the onlycompany that is aggressive about itseditorial environment. Manufacturersof packaged goods, from toothpasteto toilet paper, aggressively declaretheir love for plain-vanilla. Colgate-Palmolive, for example, won’t allowads in a “media context” containing“offensive” sexual content or mate-rial it deems “antisocial or in badtaste”-which it leaves undefined inits policy statement sent to maga-zines. In the statement, the companysays that it “charges its advertisingagencies and their media buyingservices with the responsibility ofpre-screening any questionable me-dia content or context.”Procter & Gamble, the second-largest advertising spender last year($1.5 billion), has a


View Full Document

UD COMM 245 - The Squeeze

Download The Squeeze
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view The Squeeze and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view The Squeeze 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?