Mediaweek blurs the lines between ads, editorial

(Note: The following post was written and updated in real time throughout the day. By the time you read it, most if not all of the inappropriate links I mention below will have been removed. Please read the entire post and the comments to understand what happened. Thanks.)

If you love B2B journalism as much as I do, you'll get your heart broken.
Often.

And today my heart is aching.
Take a look at this article on the Web site of Mediaweek. Don't bother to read the article. It's not particularly interesting. Just scroll down to the sixth graf. What you'll find there is an advertisement, right smack in the middle of the story. That hypertext link of the word "advertisers" will take you to the site of Vibrant Media's IntelliTXT, an advertising service that places marketing material into editorial space.

IntelliTXT says it uses "in-text placement to cut through the online advertising clutter." But B2B journalists know such "placement" is a violation of our profession's ethics guidelines.
Here's what ASBPE says about such things:
"Whether for editorial or advertising information, hypertext links should be placed at the discretion and approval of editors. Also, advertising and sponsored links should be clearly distinguishable from editorial, and labeled as such ... Contextual links within editorial content should not be sold, and generally should not link to a vendor’s Web site, unless it is pertinent to the editorial content or helpful to the reader."

Now to me, those guidelines are as clear as can be. Putting an ad in a story is wrong. Editors decide on what appears in the copy. Period.
But it appears some folks in B2B publishing continue to struggle with the idea of keeping editorial and advertising separate.

It's unclear to me who is responsible for the inappropriate links on Mediaweek.
I'd like to think it's some new guy on the advertising side, someone who just arrived and doesn't yet know the rules of journalism ethics.
I assume that the folks on the editorial side are furious, that they are raising holy hell and threatening to quit.
But I don't know.
I sent an email last week to Michael Bürgi and Jim Cooper, the editor and managing editor of the publication. I asked what was going on. I asked how the staff was reacting.
I haven't received a response.

Now like I said, what Mediaweek is doing is clearly an ethics violation.
But it's also worth noting that it's a particularly annoying violation.
Here's why:

1. Go back and take a look at that article. What you'll notice is that the ad is the only external link in the copy. Click around the Mediaweek site for awhile and you'll find that the only links in any story are ads. Mediaweek simply doesn't understand the value of links as an editorial function.
For example, the story in question is about a new service on Forbes.com. But Mediaweek doesn't see the value in providing a link so that readers can see the service in question. Or take a look at this story about MTV and Universal Music Group. The story has an inappropriate advertising link in the first paragraph. Think about that -- there's an ad in the lead! But there are no external links that might help the reader put the story in context.
I've complained for a long time about publishers that don't understand the basic concept of online publishing -- the Web is a web. And by now nearly all of the we-don't-link-offsite magazines have come around. But Mediaweek still doesn't get it.

2. Go back and look at that first article. It's about a new development at Forbes. Think about that -- a B2B publication has put an ad in a story about a magazine where the editorial staff had the professionalism and courage to stop a plan to put advertising links from IntelliTXT in their copy. I'm speechless. The Forbes fight over IntelliTXT was one of the most encouraging developments in journalism ethics of the past few years. And Mediaweek seems to .... what? not care? not know? not think that anyone would find this offensive?

3. Mediaweek isn't some tiny publication run by some knucklehead company that no one has ever heard of. It's owned by VNU, which also publishes B2B giants such as Editor & Publisher and Adweek. Furthermore, VNU is the home of National Jeweler and Whitney Sielaff, the recipient of ABM's Timothy White award for editorial integrity. Didn't anyone at VNU think that the praise and honor that Whitney has brought the company might be worth more than cheap cash from IntelliTXT?

ADDENDUM: (10:21, a.m. ET ) Within a few hours of my writing this post, the IntelliTXT links on Mediaweek were removed. I can't say for sure that the decision to pull the links was related to my complaints. Mediaweek has not responded to my email.
But what the heck, I'm going to take credit anyway.
More importantly, I want to offer my thanks and appreciation to Mediaweek for deciding to pull back from this practice.

ADDENDUM 2: (10:57 a.m.) I spoke to soon. Someone just posted a comment to this post saying the IntelliTXT links are back. And when I take a look at Mediaweek, I see that they have, in fact, returned.

ADDENDUM 3: (12:15 p.m.) It appears the IntelliTXT problem at VNU is wider than I thought. Check out this story from Adweek and scroll down to the 13th paragraph. I just left a phone message for Sid Holt, editorial director of all of VNU. I've asked him to respond here, or by email or by phone.

ADDENDUM 4: (12:41 p.m.) The IntelliTXT links also appear on VNU's Brandweek. Look at the lead paragraph of this story. I'm sending a copy of this post to Karen Benezra, editor of Brandweek, asking for her opinion on the links. I'm also going to try and send a copy to Alison Fahey, editor of Adweek, and see if she's able to comment on what's happening. But Alison's email isn't available on the magazine's Web site. So I'm going to have to improvise.

ADDENDUM 5: (3:30 P.M.) Sid Holt, VNU's editorial director, sent me an email saying that the IntelliTXT links are coming down.
According to Holt, "once editorial management became aware that advertising was embedded in editorial content, the ads were removed as quickly as possible (it is taking longer to remove the ads from Adweek than from Brandweek and Mediaweek for purely technical reasons). VNU Business Media has explicit guidelines delineating the relationship between editorial content and marketing messages. Despite occasional misunderstandings, editors and publishers alike understand, respect and observe those guidelines."
That's good news. I applaud VNU for deciding to end this inappropriate practice.
Thanks also to all of you who posted comments, sent emails or called. I'm glad to know that the B2B journalists who read this blog shared my concern about IntelliTXT and VNU.
My broken heart is mending.
Thanks.

For some of my earlier thoughts on unethical behavior click here.
For more on ASBPE's ethics code, click here.
For my advice on how to fight unethical behavior at your publication, click here.

tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, advertising, newsletters, business media, journalism ethics

eWeek crosses an ethical line

Well that didn’t take very long.
Just a few weeks ago, I predicted in Folio magazine that “at least one major publisher will do something unethical this year and then try to hide behind a claim that ‘things are different online.’
Now along comes Ziff Davis, acting ridiculous, and making me look like a prophet.

Ziff Davis’ property eWeek has begun running those same IntelliTXT ads that have led to scandal elsewhere. Regular readers of this blog know that VNU committed the same sin late last year, but pulled the ads after I complained. And anyone who follows the ongoing battle over ethics in journalism knows that the staff of Forbes magazine had to fight off IntelliTXT ads back a few years ago.

Look – there is no room for argument on this issue. We have been through this time and time again. If you want to hear how repulsive I find it when a publishing company so flagrantly violates the ethical standards of our industry, you can read my earlier post about VNU. If you want to see what the ethical guidelines of ASBPE actually say about this issue, you can also find that information in my earlier post.

In the meantime, I’m going to let Matt McAlister speak for me. I first heard about the eWeek problem through a post on his blog. And he summed up my feelings perfectly when he said "media sites scrapping to maintain profits on the page view model are bottom feeding for clicks with clutter and misleading links. Instead, they should spend their resources courting relationships with readers."

Look. Everyone knows that Ziff Davis is in trouble. After nearly going bankrupt a few years ago, the company has been searching for a buyer for a year. Bidding ended a few days ago, and no sale has been announced yet. But regardless of how things turn out, it’s unlikely that Ziff Davis’ owners, private equity firm Willis Stein & Partners, will get back anything close to the $780 million they paid for the company in 1999.

Ziff Davis has had a dismal performance of late in print. But online revenue has risen. And that has given investment bank Lehman Brothers, which is advising Ziff Davis on a sale, something to push. And when you have a private equity company and an investment bank both intent on boosting online revenue in the short term to help drive the sale of the company, you’re going to wind up with some embarrassing behavior.

So let’s be reasonable – selling IntelliTXT ads isn’t going to do anything to help turn the company around. There just isn’t that much cash involved in these things. Selling IntelliTXT ads won’t even provide enough of a short-term lift to help boost the price of the company. This is an absurd and offensive practice that won’t help a troubled company.
And let’s be frank – Ziff Davis isn’t in trouble because it didn’t have IntelliTXT ads until recently. Ziff Davis is in trouble because it’s run by people who think it makes good business sense to trade their reputation, their ethics and the morale of their staff for a few pennies.

Note: I sent an email to Eric Lundquist, VP/editorial director at eWeek, several days ago. He has not responded to my request for a comment.

tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media, advertising, newsletters, business media, journalism ethics

And the award for most egregious violation of our ethics policy goes to ...

Some congratulations are in order ... and some disdain as well. But let's start with the positives.
American Business Media has released the finalists for its Jesse Neal Business Journalism awards. The Neal awards are among the more prestigious prizes in our industry. And it shouldn't come as a surprise that some of the best publications in our our industry -- Computerworld, CFO and Editor & Publisher, for example -- are among the finalists.
You can take a look at the full list on this pdf.

But when you read that list of finalists, you may find you are as surprised and disappointed as I am to see that eWeek is a finalist for Best Web Site.
Just yesterday I pointed out that eWeek is in violation of ABM's ethics guidelines. And it's beyond me why the screening judges at ABM would think that a site that embarrasses the entire world of B2B journalism should be considered a symbol of what is best in B2B journalism.
And it's not just the ethical failings that should have ruled out eWeek. The simple truth is that Ziff Davis' eWeek.com has other problems as well.
Take a look. Notice the incredibly slow load time. Try to make it to the bottom of the text-filled monstrosity of a home page without your eyes bleeding. This is the sort of site that must give Jakob Nielsen nightmares.
eWeek is also a functional mess. As I write this piece, I see that the link on the home page that is supposed to take me to a blog post about "the Ballmer Era," instead takes me to a slide show about Microsoft Vista.
The thing that is truly saddest about these shortcomings is that much of eWeek is actually quite good. The site does have some of the things that make for compelling online content -- the blogs and slideshows mentioned above, as well as feedback functions on article pages.
But all that is good about eWeek is overshadowed by the fact that the site is ugly, performs poorly and is tainted by unethical behavior.
(It's worth noting that one of the other finalists for Best Web site is Forbes, where the staff has fought and won a battle against IntelliTXT links.)

So what explains the appearance of eWeek on the ABM list of finalists?
Perhaps the screening judges are unaware of the IntelliTXT problem. Or perhaps the IntelliTXT links began to appear after the judges made their selections (I'm unsure when they first appeared. I became aware of them last week.) That would certainly make more sense than the alternative explanation: that the judges are unfamiliar with best practices in online design and editorial.

Speaking of best practices, Prescott Shibles says the reason three publications in the Prism stable are among the nominees is because they "all focus on editorial integrity." And interestingly, Shibles says that strengthening the line between editorial and advertising has enhanced revenue, not hurt it.

To take a look at ABM's Editorial Code of Ethics, read this pdf file. Make note that ABM is about as clear as can be on the subject of IntelliTXT ads in editorial copy. "Hypertext links that appear within the editorial content of a site, including those within graphics, must be solely at the discretion of the editors. Links within editorial should never be paid for by advertisers."

To read what I thought of last year's winners of the Neal Awards, click here.

And finally, if someone you work with someone who represents the best in B2B ethics, make sure you nominate them for the Timothy White Award for Editorial Integrity. The deadline is Feb. 1.

tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media, advertising, journalism ethics

ASBPE takes stand in Ziff Davis ad-link scandal

Well this should put an end to the debate.
The American Society of Business Publication Editors has issued a formal statement saying "ad links within editorial text should NOT be sold under any condition." The statement comes in response to requests from me and others that ASBPE clarify its ethics guidelines as related to hyperlinks.

If you haven't been following this story, here's the background:
Earlier this week I blasted Ziff Davis for engaging in unethical behavior by selling ads within the editorial sections of its Web sites. The tech publisher had begun using IntelliTXT ads -- in which words in news stories link to advertisements.
Folio magazine wrote a story based on my post. And in that story Michael Vizard, editorial director and senior vice president of the Ziff Davis Enterprise Group, denied doing anything wrong. According to Vizard, selling parts of a news story as an advertisement is "in compliance with existing ASME and ASBPE guidelines as we understand them."
Vizard also said that Ziff Davis would "be inclined to comply" if those "officially recognized bodies adopt specific policies related to IntelliTXT ads."

Now to me, the rules of both organizations were already crystal clear -- editorial space belongs to the editorial department. But in a post last night, I asked those organizations, as well as American Business Media, to clarify things for Vizard.

ASBPE is the first of the three to respond. And I want to thank the organization for moving so quickly on this important issue.
I think it's fair to say that ASBPE's response is clear and strong. You can read the group's entire statement on Folio's blog or in the addendum to the magazine's earlier story. But the bottom line is that ASBPE says "ad links within editorial text should NOT be sold under any condition."

Now I'd like to see ABM clarify its position (although to be honest, the existing language is about as clear as can be: Links within editorial should never be paid for by advertisers.) And I expect that ABM will issue a statement soon. I'd also like to see ASME clarify its position (although, again, I think its guidelines on product placement, which say that editorial pages should be solely under the control of editorial, say all there is to say.) But to be honest, I have little faith in ASME's ability to handle controversy. I don't expect an answer from them for months.

But even if ABM and ASME don't respond, it seems clear to me that Vizard has got his answer:
Selling links in a story is unethical.
So when will Ziff Davis "comply" and pull the ads?

tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media, journalism ethics, advertising

Editor in ads; Ads in editorial

I attended the ASBPE conference here in New York yesterday, where the final session covered ethics in our industry. No one in the room seemed to have any problem in drawing the line between editorial and advertising. And the presence of such clarity about what is right and what is wrong left me feeling encouraged. Even more pleasing was that throughout the day people kept coming up to me, introducing themselves, and thanking me for the work I've done on ethics on this blog. So when I left the hotel last night, I was feeling positively gleeful.

Then I checked my email.

I opened a newsletter from Folio and read an article that reminded me that things aren't always what they should be in magazine publishing, and that many people in our industry do not make us proud.
Folio reported on a scandal in which the editor-in-chief of XXL Magazine appeared in an ad in his magazine.
Take a look here.

Clyde Smith at prohiphop.com first broke the news about the inappropriate ad. And Folio quotes from comments I made that appear on Clyde's site.
But it's not just me, Clyde and the folks at Folio who question the actions of XXL's editor. Marlene Kahan, executive director of ASME, told Folio that "No person on an editorial staff should ever be involved in producing or participating in advertising."

I was pleased to see that ASME was willing to weigh in on this issue. XXL's editor-in-chief was wrong. And ASME had an obligation to say so.
However, I cannot hide my continued disappointment that ASME (and ABM) have failed to weigh in on the IntelliTXT scandal. As of today, we've been waiting three months for word from either group.
In other words, ABM and ASME have failed to do in three months what ASBPE managed to do in a day -- issue a statement saying that IntelliTXT ads violate our industry's ethics rules.

(Addendum: Regular readers of this blog, and most anyone who has heard me speak in recent months, know that I generally sing the praises of XXL -- or at least of its Web site. It was back in November that I first became aware of the work of Jason Brightman on xxlmag.com. You can read here how impressed I was. Jason recently left XXL to join IDG, a client of mine. )

tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media, journalism ethics, advertising

A win for the ethical folks

Folio magazine has an article in its June edition about my recent battle with Ziff Davis over that company's unethical use of IntelliTXT ads inside editorial copy. And if Folio is correct, then this fight is over. Michael Vizard, editorial director and senior vice president for Ziff Davis’s Enterprise Group, tells Folio that Ziff Davis has removed the ads.

And as I take a look through Ziff Davis' sites tonight, I can find no evidence of the offensive ads. And I'm just thrilled.

If you're not familiar with this issue, you should be. These ads have become a plague in our industry. So please read the Folio article. Or take a look at my post that stared this fight.

Also, I'd like to once again thank ASBPE for taking a forceful stance on this issue. The support of that organization has been crucial.
At the same time I feel obliged to voice my great disappointment in American Business Media and the American Society of Magazine Editors. It was exactly a month ago tomorrow that I asked the three major trade associations to clarify their ethics policies in regard to IntelliTXT ads. And while ASBPE responded rapidly, both ABM and ASME have remained silent.
That is shameful.

tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media, journalism ethics, advertising

One step forward, two steps back

God, this business is getting depressing.
Just as I hear a piece of good news, someone sends me a piece of bad news.

First, the good news.
It appears that Ziff Davis has wised up and removed the ads from within editorial text. Regular readers of this blog know that I've been arguing for this for a week now. A few days ago, the American Society of Business Publication Editors issued a clarification of its ethics policy so that even the folks at Ziff had to accept that the practice violated ASBPE ethics guidelines. And now it looks as if Ziff has retreated. I no longer see the ads on Ziff Davis' sites.
But as good as this new is, I'm cautious. Ziff hasn't issued a statement. And longtime readers of this blog know that we've been down this road before with Ziff.

Now, the bad news.
Just as Ziff Davis seems to have accepted the rules of decent behavior, someone else has decided to violate them.
CMP's InformationWeek is now running the same ads-within-edit links from IntelliTXT that Ziff Davis did. You can see examples here and here.

As pointless as it sometimes feels to do, I will now quote from ASBPE -- "ad links within editorial text should NOT be sold under any condition." And while I'm at it, I'll also quote from American Business Media's ethics guidelines -- "Links within editorial should never be paid for by advertisers."
Now that seems crystal clear to me. But I'm quite sure that someone from CMP will send me an email full of convoluted logic and muddled thinking to explain why selling links in editorial doesn't actually violate the guidelines.

tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media, journalism ethics, advertising

Relapse of an ethical lapse

Let's review.
Ziff Davis began inserting ads inside editorial.
I complained that such practices violated the ethics guidelines of our industry.
Michael Vizard, editorial director and senior vice president at Ziff Davis, disagreed. He told Folio magazine that selling parts of a news story as an advertisement was "in compliance with existing ASME and ASBPE guidelines as we understand them," and said his company would "be inclined to" remove the ads if those "officially recognized bodies adopt specific policies related to IntelliTXT ads."
ASBPE responded with a statement that was about as clear as any I have ever seen in the world of ethics. The trade association, which represents the journalists of B2B, said "ad links within editorial text should NOT be sold under any condition."
The ads disappeared from Ziff Davis' sites.
Sam Whitmore reported that Vizard told him that Ziff Davis was dropping the ads, but wouldn't issue a statement on the controversy.

And just when it seemed that this ugly incident was over, a reader of this blog sends me an email to tell me that the ads are back at Ziff Davis' PC Magazine (Take a look at this article for examples.)

tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media, journalism ethics, advertising

eWeek retreats in ads-within-edit scandal

A few anonymous emails and one anonymous commenter tell me that eWeek has come to its senses.
The publication seems to have ended its offensive practice of inserting ads in the editorial.
If you're new to this issue, you can read my initial post on the problem here, or click here to read of my dismay to find that eWeek was a finalist for a Neal Award.

Now it's worth noting that eWeek hasn't officially announced that it's pulling the IntelliTXT ads. I asked Eric Lundquist, VP/editorial director at eWeek, for a comment several weeks ago. But I never received a response. Nonetheless, my anonymous friends tell me the links are gone. And as I take a quick look through the site, I can find no evidence they ever existed.

I'm thrilled by this development. And I want to thank anyone and everyone at eWeek that raised their voices against the ads. I also want to thank all of you who sent emails, posted comments and wrote pieces of your own about the scandal. Together you have made it clear -- again -- that the journalists of B2B will not compromise over ethics. Together you have reminded our industry -- again -- that the rules don't change just because a publication is online rather than in print.

For David Shaw's take on eWeek, click here.
Check out Matt McAlister's thoughts here.

tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media

ASME arrives late to ethics debate

In the past year, B2B journalism has suffered one of the most embarrassing scandals in its history, as several companies -- including VNU and Ziff Davis -- began to sell ads within editorial. Words in stories were marked as hypertext links. But the links didn't lead to other news or information chosen by editors, the links were inserted by a company called IntelliTXT and they led to ads. The links were misleading, offensive and clearly violated ethics guidelines.

Longtime readers of this blog will remember the debate that ensued. But if you're new to this issue, let me say this: most of the associations that claim to represent the interests of B2B publishing failed -- miserably -- during the crisis.
On May 3, I published something on this blog asking the American Society of Business Publication Editors, American Business Media and the American Society of Magazine Editors to issue a ruling on the ads-in-edit controversy. Although VNU had backed away after I complained, and although it was clear to me and to hundreds of others that these ads were unethical, an executive at Ziff Davis had told Folio magazine that the ads did not violate the organizations' ethics guidelines.
So I asked the three groups to clarify.

ASBPE -- god bless it -- responded within hours, issuing a statement that "ad links within editorial text should NOT be sold under any condition."
But ABM and ASME never responded.
They never issued statements. They never answered my emails or phone calls on the subject. They just ignored the whole thing. They have continued to ignore the scandal ... for six months.

So you'll have to forgive me for being unimpressed by the news that ASME intends to update its ethics guidelines.
I mean seriously, ASME has had a half of a year to decide if its existing ethics policy actually means what it appears to mean. ASME has had a half of a year to decide if it's unethical to sell the actual words that journalists write. So I have no faith that ASME's new policy will actually address the tough issues, and I have no faith that ASME will actually stand behind whatever policy it does issue.

Glamour editor Cindi Leive is president of ASME. In announcing the plans to update the group's ethics policy, she said that "The church-state wall isn’t as clear or defined as it is in print.”
I disagree. As I have said dozens of times in this blog and in meetings with journalists and journalism students -- the rules of ethics haven't changed online, and you shouldn't let them. The church-state wall is clear. Edit is still edit. An ad is still an ad. Transparency is still the key to ethical behavior. And all of our ethics rules still boil down to one simple concept: Don't mislead the reader.

What has changed is that the journalists of B2B have fewer places to turn when the pressure to behave unethically builds. We can still trust ASBPE to stand behind us. But ABM and ASME have demonstrated that we cannot depend upon them.
(UPDATE: ABM has made it's position clear, and I'm thrilled.)

tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media, journalism ethics, advertising

More on the Ziff Davis ads-in-edit scandal

Folio magazine has written an article about my dispute with Ziff Davis over that company's insertion of ads into the bodies of stories.
Take a look.

I think it's fair to say that while folks such as Rex Hammock and Jeffrey Seglin (both quoted in the Folio article) agree with me that the ads are violations of our industry's ethical standards, the folks at Ziff Davis disagree. Rather, Michael Vizard, editorial director and senior vice president of Ziff Davis Enterprise Group, says the ads are "in compliance with existing ASME and ASBPE guidelines as we understand them."

But consider, if you will, the wording of ASME's ethical guidelines: "Advertisers should not pay to place their products in editorial pages nor should they demand placement in return for advertising. Editorial pages may display and credit products and tell readers where to buy them, as long as those pages are solely under editorial control."
The key here, it seems to me, is that last section. Editorial pages must be "solely under editorial control."
I think it's clear that ASBPE is even more clear in its ethics guidelines: "Contextual links within editorial content should not be sold.”
But I think the award for clarity on this issue has to go to American Business Media. Here's what ABM has to say: "Hypertext links that appear within the editorial content of a site, including those within graphics, must be solely at the discretion of the editors. Links within editorial should never be paid for by advertisers."

But as clear as these rules are to me, they are apparently not clear enough for the senior management at Ziff Davis. Vizard wants ASBPE and ASME to be even more direct. He tells Folio magazine that "Should these officially recognized bodies adopt specific policies related to IntelliTXT ads, we would welcome that clarification and would also be inclined to comply with those guidelines."

Now putting aside that Jeffrey Seglin is a member of the ASBPE ethics committee, and that in the Folio article he seems to offer exactly the sort of clarification that Vizard says he wants, let's try to put an end to this depends-upon-what-the-meaning-of-the word-'is'-is foolishness.
Let's just ask the "officially recognized bodies."

So here goes: I'm formally asking that ASBPE, ASME and ABM issue statements on the use of advertising links in stories. Please publish your opinions on your Web sites and/or the comment section of this blog.
Thank you.

For other takes on this issue, see what Matt McAlister, Eric Shanfelt and Rex Hammock have to say.

tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media, journalism ethics, advertising

Another win in ads-in-edit controversy?

Maybe we're making some progress.
Last week, just as I learned that Ziff Davis had apparently ended its offensive practice of inserting ads in editorial text, I learned that CMP had begun doing so. But as a few readers of this blog have told me via email, CMP also now seems to have also retreated. Clickable ads that had appeared in stories here and here have disappeared. And as I take a quick cruise through the site this morning, I can't find any more of the offensive things.
However, I'm not entirely convinced that CMP has decided to do the right thing. When I look through the source code of those stories, I find references to IntelliTXT ads. That code may be something that's left over even if the ads have been removed forever. I just don't know for sure. So I'll wait awhile before I thank CMP for behaving responsibly.

But I would like to once again thank the readers of this blog who have voiced their support over this issue. And I'd like to offer special thanks to the American Society of Business Publication Editors. After publishing executives claimed that selling ads inside editorial text didn't violate ASBPE's ethics guidelines, the association responded quickly with a clear and definitive statement that no one could possibly misunderstand: "ad links within editorial text should NOT be sold under any condition."

On the other hand, I'm still awaiting a formal statement on this issue from American Business Media and the American Society of Magazine Editors.

tags: journalism, b2b, media, trade press, magazines, newsletters, business media, journalism ethics, advertising