Article 28Sex, Lies& AdvertisingGLORIA STEINEMGloria Steinem was a founding editor of “Ms.” in 1972 andis now its consulting editor. She is also at work on “The Bed-side Book of Self-Esteem” for Little, Brown.About three years ago, as glasnost was beginningand Ms. seemed to be ending I was invited toa press lunch for a Soviet official. He enter-, tained us with anecdotes about new problemsof democracy in his country Local Communist leaderswere being criticized in their media for the first time, heexplained, and they were angry“So I’ll have to ask my American friends,” he finishedpointedly, “how more subtly to control the press.” In thesilence that followed, I said, “Advertising.”The reporters laughed, but later, one of them took measide: How dare I suggest that freedom of the press waslimited? How dare I imply that his newsweekly couldbe influenced by ads?I explained that I was thinking of advertising’s me-diawide influence on most of what we read. Even news-magazines use “soft” cover stories to sell ads, confusereaders with “advertorials,” and occasionally self-censoron subjects known to be a problem with big advertisers.But, I also explained, I was thinking especially ofwomen’s magazines. There, it isn’t just a little contentthat’s devoted to attracting ads, it’s almost all of it. That’swhy advertisers-not readers-have always been theproblem for Ms. As the only women’s magazine thatdidn’t supply what the ad world euphemistically de-scribes as “supportive editorial atmosphere” or “comple-mentary copy” (for instance, articles that praise food/fashion/beauty subjects to “support” and “comple-ment” food/fashion/beauty ads), Ms. could never attractenough advertising to break even.“Oh, women S magazines,”the journalist said with con-tempt. “Everybody knows they’re catalogs-but whocares? They have nothing to do with journalism.”n Suppose archaeologists of the1future dug up women’smagazines and used them tojudge American women.What would they think ofus-and what can we doabout it?I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had this argumentin 25 years of working for many kinds of publications.Except as moneymaking machines-“cash cows” as theyare so elegantly called in the trade-women’s magazinesare rarely taken seriously Though changes being madeby women have been called more far-reaching than the!industrial revolution-and though many editors try hardto reflect some of them in the few pages left to themafter all the ad-related subjects have been covered-themagazines serving the female half of this country are stillfar below the journalistic and ethical standards of newsand general interest publications. Most depressing of a&?this doesn’t even rate an expose.If Time and Newsweek had to lavish praise on cars in !general and credit General Motors in particular to get 1GM ads, there would be a scandal-maybe a criminal :investigation. When women’s magazines from Sfmnte~to Lear’s praise beauty products in general and creditRevlon in particular to get ads, it’s just business as usdI.When Ms. began, we didn’t consider not taking ads. Themost important reason was keeping the price of a fednist magazine low enough for most women to afford.170From Ms. magazine, July/August 1990, pp. 18-28. 0 1990 by Gloria Steinem. Reprinted by permission.But the second and almost equal reason was providingd forum where women and advertisers could talk to eachather and improve advertising itself. After all, it was(and still is) as potent a source of information in thiscountry as news or TV and movie dramas.We decided to proceed in two stages. First, we wouldconvince makers of “people products” used by both menad women but advertised mostly to men-cars, creditcards, insurance, sound equipment, financial servicesad the like-that their ads should be placed in $women’s magazine. Since they were accustomed to thedivision between editorial and advertising in news andgeneral interest magazines, this would allow our edito-rial content to be free and diverse. Second, we wouldadd the best ads for whatever traditional “women’sproducts” (clothes, shampoo, fragrance, food, and so on)that surveys showed Ms. readers used. But we wouldask them to come in wifhouf the usual quid pro quo of“complementary copy”We knew the second step might be harder. Food adver-tisers have always demanded that women’s magazinespublish recipes and articles on entertaining (preferablyones that name their products) in return for their ads; cloth-ing advertisers expect to be surrounded by fashion spreads(especiaIly ones that credit their designers); and shampoofragrance, and beauty products in general usually insist odpositive editorial coverage of beauty subjects, plus photocredits besides. That’s why women’s magazines look theway they do. But if we could break this link between adsand editorial content, then we wanted good ads for“women’s products,” too.By playing their part in this unprecedented mix of allthe things our readers need and use, advertisers alsowould be rewarded: ads for products like cars and mu-tual funds would find a new growth market. the bestads for women’s products would no longer be lost inOceans of ads for the same category; and both wouldhave access to a laboratory of smart and caring readerswhose response would help create effective ads for othermedia as well.28. Sex, lies, and Advertisingwere asking for ads with positive black images, andthough their struggle was hard, they weren’t being calledunreasonable.Clearly, what Ms. needed was a very special publisherand ad sales staff. I could think of only one woman withexperience on the business side of magazines-PatriciaCarbine, who recently had become a vice president ofMcCall’s as well as its editor in chief-and the reason Iknew her name was a good omen. She had been man-aging editor at Look (really the editor, but its owner re-fused to put a female name at the top of his masthead)when I was writing a column there. After I did an earlyinterview with Cesar Chavez, then just emerging as aleader of migrant labor, and the publisher turned it downbecause he was worried about ads from Sunkist, Pat wasthe one who intervened. As I learned later, she had toldthe publisher she would resign if the interview wasn’tpublished. Mainly because Look couldn’t afford to losePat, it was published (and the ads from Sunkist neverarrived).I thought