• by Jim Meskauskas , August 8, 2002

First let me fully disclose here: I used to work for Dave Smith. He is a tireless student of media and all that it might be capable of. He was calculating Reach and Frequencies when most of us were still learning to add one to one. He was also one of the first in the media profession to see the potential of the Internet as a viable advertising vehicle.

Something else to know about Mr. Smith: he LOVES this medium.

Last week’s column, Send Me Your Stories! was not an attempt to take a pot-shot at the industry or call for other people’s mud to be slung. It is borne of a love for this medium and a desire to save it from the worst practices that are fast becoming the primary feature of the public’s understanding of what the industry actually does.

Some people feel that such a call for “ugly stories” might serve only to create a sense of guilt by association in the mind of the public at large. By accentuating the aberrant we risk perpetuating a negative image that the online advertising industry does not deserve.

But what some people might not understand is that this project Dave is undertaking is all about image.

A lot of folks with a provenance that is "internet only" don't seem to understand that advertising and all things it relates to is based primarily on perception. Nothing about advertising or the principles it operates on stand on their own. If that were the case, the online advertising wonks would be complaining that the sector is getting too much money from advertisers, not vice versa.

I can appreciate the noblesse of hearts that want to take to the barricades based on the truth, the strength of ideas and the very real positive features of the medium. However, this stance only works on college campuses and other Ivory Towers, usually to long-term ill effect. It didn't work on the streets of Paris in 1832 and it isn’t going to work now.

Ignoring bad behavior and letting it go unacknowledged is not the way to deal with things like Spam, obnoxious pop-ups, and outright engagements of fraud. You do not raise a responsible and well-behaved child by closing your eyes to his or her transgressions. By recognizing negative deeds and admonishing them appropriately, you might not only help to properly socialize the child, but you may also save that child from harm. After all, do you let the toddler reach for the open flame or do you swat the toddler’s hand before he or she is burned?

What Dave is talking about isn't unreasonable here. The consequences of not being fully disclosed have dominated the headlines of just about every newspaper in the Union. Enron, WorldCom, the Catholic Church, even Tyco, which actually didn't do anything wrong, but lacked transparency, are all examples of what happens when the good is featured out of proportion with the bad.

I suggest that everyone read the ClueTrain Manifesto, by Christopher Locke, Rick Levine, Doc Searls, and David Weinberger. Not the best business book ever written, I'll admit. But one idea among their 95 theses (yes, think Martin Luther and the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg) that was terribly poignant was this: a marketplace needs to be an open, honest conversation, both good and bad. Warts and all exposure is a much better road to hoe than to recluse behind the curtain shouting "I am the great and powerful Oz!," over and over again hoping that no one discovers it is just a man like any other pulling levers and pushing buttons.

Think about it, folks. Most of you reading this know that YOU have nothing to do with Spam and unsolicited pornography, but as members of this industry, once accused, true or not, you DO have something to do with it. Dave is just finding his way of dealing with it.

I trust that most of you out there reading this column have conducted yourself and your business with the utmost integrity. However, though none of this is our fault, it is now our problem.