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

Selling your reputation

I don't accept ads on this blog. There are lots of reasons for that, but the core one is this: I don't want readers to worry about bias. When I say that I like a particular magazine or Web site, I don't want anyone to think that I was paid to say so.
I view this blog as a service, not as a business. I write about things that interest me in the world of B2B journalism. And I try to offer insights, guidance and suggestions to my peers in this profession.

But it would be misleading for me to describe myself solely as a journalist. I'm also an entrepreneur. I run a consulting business. And this blog is most certainly a promotional tool for that business. In the world of B2B, I'm best known as Paul Conley, the blogger, not as Paul Conley who used to be Midwest Bureau Chief at the Journal of Commerce, or as that Conley guy, who used to be a v.p. at Primedia Business.

Nonetheless, on this blog I strive to keep a church/state wall between my business interests and my journalism passions. That's why posts on this blog often contain disclosures about my business relationships with companies such as IDG, Primedia/Prism/Penton, N.Y. Times Digital/About, SmartBrief, Cygnus, etc.

But every once in awhile, someone offers me a chance to "monetize" my blog through ads or pay-per-post or some other such scheme. And I've never had a hard time saying "no."

But in recent weeks, some of the bigger names in the blogging world have apparently succumbed to temptation. They took money to write positive things about an advertiser. And they failed to disclose the relationship.

Much of the blogging world is abuzz over the controversy. And as is often true when controversy moves through the blogosphere, Rex Hammock is the guy I'm most likely to agree with.
But I will add just one small point to the arguments over what is, and is not, permitted online.
As I said earlier, I am both an entrepreneur and a journalist. And it is in my role as a journalist that I can find all the guidance I need as I navigate the ethics debates.

Here's what ASBPE's ethics guidelines say about writing about advertisers: "Favorable editorial coverage or preferential treatment in an article must never hinge on the prospect of ad sales, financial gain, or other factors that are not related to editorial integrity." Here's what ABM says on the subject: "Advertisers and potential advertisers must never receive favorable editorial treatment because of their economic value to the publication."

For me -- and for all of us in B2B journalism -- the rules are clear. Whether we work in print, or online or both, we must behave as journalists. Or, as I have said more times than I can remember, the rules haven't changed online, and you shouldn't let them.

(Note: Longtime readers of this blog may remember the first time someone offered to pay me for my work here. Take a look at how I responded.)

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

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

Ethics and awards

There are few things in journalism I find as absurd or as dangerous as the notion that publishing on a computer screen rather than on a piece of paper exempts us from the norms of ethical behavior. Yet it seems that nearly every day someone makes exactly that claim.
Consider, if you will, the case of Bambi Francisco at MarketWatch. Francisco has left her job after it became clear that she had violated the ethical standards of parent company Dow Jones. And although I have no intention of defending Francisco's actions, it should be pretty clear that she was given "permission" to turn her back on the ethics guidelines by her boss, who has said "the rigid rules of the past may not always apply to the new media."
(For more on the Francisco scandal, check out what Matthew Ingram and Staci Kramer have to say.)

If I have accomplished nothing else in writing this blog, I would like to think that I've helped to remind the world of B2B journalism that the rigid rules of the past do apply to new media. Or, as I've said in earlier writings and in public appearances, "the rules haven't changed online, and you shouldn't let them."

So it pleases me to see that the American Society of Business Publication Editors has been named to the Folio 40 list for having "put together one of the most comprehensive editorial ethics guidelines for online."
Folio magazine is correct: "few organizations have tackled the subject of online ethics as thoroughly as the American Society of Business Publication Editors did in the May 2006 release of its updated ethics guide." I congratulate ASBPE for the honor. And I applaud Folio for naming the association to the Folio 40.

(Disclosure One: Bambi Francisco and I worked together briefly at CNNfn, the financial news network of CNN, which now exists only as CNNMoney. I don't remember her well. And she may not remember me at all. But in the time we worked together, I thought of her as both professional and ethical.
Disclosure Two: Longtime readers may remember that I began urging ASBPE to update its ethics policy roughly two years ago. The first reference I can find to that call is in this post from July 2005. And thus I feel some pride in ASBPE's accomplishment. To read my reaction to the new guidelines in May of last year, click here.)

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

Violating our ethics policy doesn't break our rules

Sara Sheadel at the ABM blog has written a response to my post yesterday in which I noted my disappointment that eWeek.com was a finalist for a Neal Award despite being in violation of ABM's ethics guidelines.

Take a moment to read what Sara says. You'll see that although it's unclear if the judges knew that eWeek was in violation, there is a larger problem here. It seems that although it's against the Neal rules for a print publication to violate the ethics guidelines, it's not yet against the rules for an online publication to do so.
Sara says she's "going to wager a guess that these rules may change next year. "
I'll bet she's right.

(Note: It's now been exactly one week since I asked Eric Lundquist, VP/editorial director at eWeek, for an explanation. I still haven't heard back. Thus I'm revoking the right of every journalist at Ziff Davis to complain that sources don't return their calls.)

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

Folio looks at the ad-edit issue

A little more than a week ago, VNU pulled a series of inappropriate ads from the editorial section of its magazines after I pointed out that the practice violated our profession's ethics.
I was pleased that VNU made the right decision. And I applaud the company for doing something that can be very tough -- backing away from a bad move.

This month's issue of Folio magazine takes a look at the line between editorial and advertising, and uses my thoughts about VNU as a starting point. Take a look.

I read the Folio piece with a heavy heart. Because it reminded me that many people in B2B publishing seem to have a difficult time with the easiest of concepts -- be good. In particular, the Folio article quotes an unnamed publisher, referring to ethics and online publishing, as saying “It’s like the Wild West out there.”
That's nonsense.
More to the point, that's wishful thinking by people who are willing to cut ethical corners.

The Folio piece gives a detailed and thoughtful look at new forms of marketing material that are available on the Web, including "online advertorials, sponsored areas, micro-sites and vendor-generated content."
Those are all valuable forms of content. And each of them is perfectly appropriate on the Web site of a B2B publisher.
But there is nothing about those types of material -- NOTHING -- that exempts them from the rules of ethics. Or, as I've told B2B journalists a hundred times: the rules haven't changed online, and you shouldn't let them.

Consider if you will one of the most basic of our profession's ethical guidelines -- make it clear what's an ad and what's not. The American Society of Magazine Editors puts it this way: "If any content comes from a source other than the editors, it should be clearly labeled. A magazine’s name or logo should not be used in a way that suggests editorial endorsement of an advertiser." The American Society of Business Publication Editors has this to say: "Special ad sections and supplements should be clearly labeled with the word 'advertising,' 'advertisement,' 'sponsored by,' or similar designation. The words 'advertorial' or 'infomercial' confuse the readers about the nature of the material, and should be avoided."

Or to put it more simply -- if someone paid for something on your site, make that clear to the reader.
Don't call ads a "resource center." Don't call them "special services."
Be clear. Be honest. Be ethical. Be good.
Those are simple rules for all of business, and all of life.

And remember, no matter what anyone else says -- you work in journalism, not in the Wild West.

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

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