±±¾©Èü³µpk10

The tension between advertising and editorial is notorious. Editors

- in whatever medium - want the freedom to say what they like.

Advertisers don’t mind editors saying what they like, as long as they

like it too.

It’s an age-old conflict and will continue as long as media owners

depend on advertising for their survival.

But recently, in the homeland of freedom of speech - the US - the strain

between editorial and advertising has reached breaking point. It’s a

fight that is beginning to spill over into the UK and it raises the

important question of how much power an advertiser should wield before

their brand, and the media environment in which it appears, is

undermined.

The furore kicked off again recently with news that McCann-Erickson in

New York sent a letter to US magazine editors stipulating what editorial

Coca-Cola’s ads should appear against. The list of ’banned’ subjects

makes extraordinary reading (see panel). Coke’s idea of a compatible

environment for its ’real thing’ brand values excludes subjects

concerning almost every recognisable aspect of real life, from politics

to religion.

Kari Bjorhus, manager of marketing communications for the Coca-Cola

Corporation, says the issuing of such ’guidelines’ is ’standard

practice’ and protests that Coke is merely looking to place its ads

against ’positive and upbeat’ editorial.

Coke is not the first to flex its ad muscle. Last year Chrysler shifted

its magazine advertising into titles that do not focus on sex, violence

or anti-social behaviour.

This move to safer, if less gripping, magazines was taken after a bitter

dispute in which the company insisted on prior knowledge of the

editorial content surrounding its advertising.

The dispute began when Chrysler’s advertising agency, Michigan-based

Pentacom, sent a letter to the editors of 50 magazines seeking advance

notice of editorial content. Pentacom asked editors to provide warnings

when, ’sexual, political, social issues or any that might be construed

as provocative or offensive’ were to be covered in editorial.

The letter was met with outrage. Advertisers habitually seek to

disassociate themselves from copy that directly attacks their business

or their sector, but sensitivity about such a wide cross-section of

subjects was unprecedented.

Peter Griffin, deputy editor at Esquire in New York, says: ’It was very

unusual, and was alarming to the publishing industry in general because

it was a big enough advertiser for people to take notice.’

Donald Kummerfeld, president of Magazine Publishers of America, which

brokered a settlement in the dispute, said that a distinction had to be

made between alerting an advertiser in advance about a particular

feature that was likely to be particularly negative for them, and

providing text, pictures or tables of contents for approval. ’That is

where we draw the line,’ he says.

’Nobody is saying the advertiser does not have the right to make a

judgement about whether this is the kind of magazine in which they want

to put their advertising, but we say it is not in their interest to

weaken the bond of trust that exists between readers and a magazine,’ he

says.

Values for money

The resolution of the dispute did not come before a number of editors

had come forward complaining of, at the very least, increased vigilance

from advertisers over the environments in which their advertising

appeared.

There were also some claims of blatant interventionism and of holding

editors to ransom.

In one case, Newsweek, Time and US News were said to have been contacted

by a major advertiser who said his company would be monitoring how its

industry was covered in editorial over the next quarter. At the end of

the period, the advertiser (who was not named by the editorial source)

said it would award all of its weekly news budget to the one magazine

that it judged to be the most favourable to its industry.

Many big brands are playing this game. Kimberly-Clark is reported to

have asked that its ads are placed adjacent only to ’black and white,

happy baby editorial’. The New Yorker lost Ford advertising for six

months after an ad ran against a piece on rap music which featured

swearing.

Attempts to explain what is happening have focused on a number of

issues.

On one level, the argument is about stricter media buying, as buyers are

concerning themselves more with the environments surrounding their

clients’ ads.

Other attempts to explain the phenomenon within the US focus on the

increased power of the consumer and the influence of single-issue

pressure groups, which make advertisers nervous of inciting unexpected

consumer backlashes or boycotts.

US TV series habitually face criticism over editorial content from

minority interests, which often upsets advertisers that cannot afford to

be associated with a show causing offence.

An edition of the sitcom Ellen, featuring the lead character coming out

as a lesbian, for example, was avoided by large car manufacturers for

fear of upsetting consumers.

Only in America?

In the UK, publishers say straightforward advertiser influence over

editorial is less of a problem than in the US. Chris Hughes, publisher

of Esquire, says: ’It would never happen here like that; no one would

tolerate that level of interference.’

Nicholas Coleridge, managing director of Conde Nast, says: ’I have had

no explicit overtures at all. You do of course hear all the time what

advertisers think of your publications, they are very concerned about

environments.’

But the signs are that UK advertisers are starting to throw their weight

around. Omega’s withdrawal of its ads from Vogue, after a protest about

photos of waif-like models in editorial, shows that media owners have to

be prepared for advertisers to involve themselves more. There have been

no rows on the scale of the US yet, but it is unlikely that the biggest

advertisers will leave UK media alone if they have managed to get their

way in the US.

Some argue that the problem is a result of new advertising opportunities

encouraging advertisers to think more in editorial terms. In the UK, for

example, the advent of advertiser-supplied television programming,

product placement, the introduction of masthead programming, the

increase in magazines’ use of advertorials, and TV sponsorship have all

set the precedent of allowing advertisers more influence.

Mike Gorman, ex-media director at Saatchi & Saatchi, believes the

boundaries are being pushed back all the time. ’The problem comes when a

media owner sacrifices his brand value for ad revenue,’ he says. He

cites the Mirror allowing itself to be printed on blue paper for Pepsi’s

campaign as an example of a compromise too far.

Will Barton Catmur, an associate lecturer in communications, culture and

media at Coventry University, believes the reason the boundaries are

moving is connected to the increasing sophistication of the

consumer.

His argument is that as consumers become more understanding of media and

advertising, it is natural for advertisers to work harder to make an

impact. Hence product placement and the sponsorship of television

programming are on the increase, and because consumers are media-savvy,

these are more acceptable.

’It has swung a long way with things like product placement in films and

sponsorship of TV programming. There is more opportunity to imply a

close connection between products and editorial,’ he says.

The fact that UK media owners are more willing to fit in with

advertisers’ needs is not always a bad thing. Recently, The Independent

said it would be printing the editorial on its health page upside down

as part of a deal with the Multiple Sclerosis Society, which would run

an ad underneath saying ’How would you cope if your life was as

unpredictable as this?’

But, if advertisers are allowed too much leeway, they will inevitably

keep pushing the boundaries further, which could be to the detriment of

their brands and the media brands in which they advertise.

For example, how well does Coke’s refusal to advertise against news,

health, religion and environmental issues reflect on its positioning? If

it wants to be seen as a drink for the people, as its ’real thing’ and

’for the fans’ ad-lines suggest, how can it distance itself so

completely from real life? Bjorhus says it is just trying to be

’upbeat’, but could this relentless emphasis on the positive makes Coke,

one of the most culturally influential brands of the 20th century appear

shallow and detached?

As far as media owners are concerned, most will not change editorial to

attract Coke ads, but there is a danger that some will adapt to fit in

with Coke’s manifesto and will damage their credibility in the

process.

The more advertisers pile on the pressure, the more likely it is that

media owners will compromise themselves.

The issue has become enough of a concern that the Periodical Publishers

Association will discuss it at its forthcoming annual conference (May

19-20). In a session entitled ’There is no such thing as a freebie’ the

PPA will discuss how the growth in paid-for editorial and increased

advertiser influence can be balanced with the integrity of the

publication.

This is a debate in which both media owners and advertisers need to take

heed. The integrity of their respective brands is at stake and consumers

- increasingly media-literate - will tolerate advertiser input only as

far as they want to play the game. The more they hear about advertisers

aggressively influencing their media, the more they will be turned

off.

COKE: SENSE OR CENSOR?

In March, McCann-Erickson sent a letter to American magazine editors

giving guidelines on the editorial environment in which Coca-Cola’s ads

should appear.

It explained that Coke seeks to place its ads around ’positive and

upbeat editorial’, which provides ’a compatible environment in which to

communicate the brand’s message’.

The letter, details of which were put on the Web site of New York’s

Village Voice, sets out a list of ’inappropriate’ editorial

subjects.

It reads: ’We require that our ads are not placed adjacent to articles

discussing the following issues:

- hard news

- sex-related issues drugs (prescription or illegal) medicine (eg

chronic illnesses such as cancer, diabetes, Aids)

- health (eg mental or physical medical conditions)

- negative diet information (eg bulimia, anorexia, quick weight

loss)

- food

- political issues

- environmental issues articles containing vulgar language

- religion

The letter also states that ’any Coca-Cola ad that faces less than full

editorial and/or inappropriate editorial matter will be subject to a

full makegood’. This means the media owner reprinting the ad at a later

date free of charge.

Kari Bjorhus, manager of marketing communications for Coca-Cola Corp,

says the setting out of guidelines ’does not mean we are asking

publishers to change editorial. We have no influence over what they

write’.

Despite the list, she says Coke ’continues to find acceptable editorial

environments that allow our ads to have maximum impact’.

Bjorhus claims she simply wants an ’upbeat and refreshing’ response to

her ads.