Editor Ethics v Advertising dollars - the big circle

Roopinder Tara has initiated an interesting discussion on his CAD Insider blog this week about ethics of editors, which has garnered many interesting comments.

Approaching this from a PR point of view makes for an interesting discussion in itself.  As marketeers, would we prefer to have editors that honestly describe a product or one who can be influenced by marketing dollars? There are numerous stories over the years of vendor advertisers leaning on publications to make sure that reviews are positive. Rumors circulate about major vendors having enough influence to be able to get an editor fired. Even one (and I don't think this is unique by the way) of a major vendor trying to sue a few editors for writing 'bad things' about a product release.

Ultimately, a discussion about editor ethics: what they say and don't say, and the power of a vendor to change the outcome is part of a bigger circle, an evolutionary cycle that has a life of its own. I feel that editing and publishing should not be regarded as a two-way-street between publications and vendors, but rather a big circle. Here's why.

What came first? The reader or the publication? Why do readers pick up a magazine? Because they are interested in what's being said by the editor. Why do advertisers pay some darned good money to advertise? Because the readers they want are reading that magazine. Now remember that the readers of CAD magazines are often far brighter than us, far more qualified, and distinguished with armfuls of Masters degrees and CE credits...and can smell marketing puff a mile away. If an editor simply takes marketing puff and republishes it, in the long term the publication will lose its readership - the same readership advertisers are paying for. Once the readership is lost, the vendors have to go to other sources to advertise.

So if your product has had a crap review, you do, indeed, want to jump all over the editor. How about refusing to advertise? How about using influence to get that 'dumb editor' fired from his job? And that private benchmarking gig you were going to give him goes elsewhere. Cool eh?

Not so. Heavy influence on an editor will be detected eventually by the readers, who will then go to other sources to find what they want. Or withdrawal of major advertising support by the vendor could mean the end of the publication, in which case you have to re-discover your readers via other sources, which may be many, varied and cost an awful lot more of the marketing budget.

And then perhaps, just perhaps, you should be listening to the editor who said your product was not as good as you thought. You know, all can be redeemed. One of our clients got an awful review from a CAD editor two years ago. They were devastated. This year the newly upgraded product got a fantastic review from the same editor: the developer listened and after some trying got a lot of it 'right'. The editor also listened and came to the same conclusion, with, we think, a great deal of honesty.

The CAD publications market has had a pretty bad decade: early 2000 saw many unemployed CAD editors as marketing funds were withdrawn due to economic conditions. Many print publications that survived have since been gradually losing readership. Simultaneously, I feel that the overall quality of print CAD editorial has dropped somewhat while their publishers endeavour to appease advertisers, therefore revenue, back. Many editors who lost their jobs struck out with their own blogs and are probably providing the higher quailty editorial that readers want. And inevitably, those blogs, with quality editorial, will start to gain the greater advertising advantage...until such time that their major advertisers withdraw their advertising because those editors said something 'mean'. And so the circle mutates.

My conclusion is that this is careful balance and too much influence on one side makes for an imbalance: Vendors need to use their considerable influence very wisely. At the same time, editors have to make sure that what they are saying is right on the button.

But do go and visit CADInsider too. It is illuminating.http://cadinsider.typepad.com/my_weblog/

Comments

[H. Edward Goldberg]

I am not influenced by advertizing, I just give my opinion.

I wonder why you never mention me in your Blog although I am the only practicing Architect that is also an analyst, and actually uses the tools.

Ed Goldberg AIA, NCARB
Architect and Industry Analyst

[Evan Yares]

It's the hat, Ed. Plus, she's British.

[rachael Dalton-Taggart]

Ed,

You know, you're right. I don't pay enough attention to you and several other editors who deserve it...but there again be careful what you wish for: Martyn Day regrets the day he ever laid eyes on me.

[H. Edward Goldberg]

Rachael:

I take that as a complement.

Actually I am easy to understand; I just want to be recognized for my talents, and that comes from hidden self doubt.

I think we all do a great job, and are very honest. I also think that we each have a valid view of the industry.