• by November 9, 2005

COVER STORY -- When American Business Media sent an e-mail last week advising members it had just published an update of its Code of Ethics for the editors and publishers of printed and online trade publications, we immediately requested a copy. And it's not just because we wanted to know how many of the rules we currently are violating. It was because, in these increasingly murky times, we wanted to know where the official line is drawn between church and state, er, editorial and advertising content. So it was more than a little ironic that the same day the pamphlet arrived in our mail, we also received a special edition of Advertising Age that appeared to violate several of the ABM's ethical guidelines. It was ironic because Ad Age is considered a gold standard of editorial quality by many people in the world of trade publications, including us. So we did a double-take when we tore open a poly-bagged copy of the venerable ad trade magazine being distributed at this week's Ad:Tech conference in New York, only to find that Ad Age had sold its cover.

Well, it looked like its cover, anyway. Upon closer inspection, it was merely an ad wrapped around the Nov. 7 edition of Ad Age, which was designed to look exactly like a real cover, except that all of its content happened to feature news about SpecificMEDIA, a company describing itself as offering "behavioral targeting solutions for marketing." Oh, yeah, and it did sport the disclaimer "ADVERTISEMENT" in tiny print above its bold editorial nameplate, "Advertising Age," and its supporting copy: "Crain's International Newspaper of Marketing/U.S. $3.99, Canada $5.00, U.K. £3.95." Heck, it even had Ad Age's nifty 75th anniversary logo.

Did Ad Age step over the line? Frankly, we weren't sure. So we applied a litmus test. We showed it to MediaPost's head of sales and marketing, Nick Friese, who said, "It's a faux cover. Even I wouldn't do that." That pretty much convinced us, but we still needed something more official, so we consulted the new ABM handbook. Sure enough, it states that special ad supplements or advertorials need to clearly distinguish themselves from a trade magazine's editorial content by placing the words "advertising, advertisement, special advertising supplement or similar labeling" horizontally at or near the center of the top of every page. So, Ad Age is cool there. But there are two other elements of the ABM's ethics code for the separation of advertising and editorial content that it seems to violate:

* "The layout, design, typeface and style of special advertising sections or custom publishing products must be distinctly different from those of the publication."

* "Special advertising sections must not be slugged in the publication's cover (including stickers) nor included in the table of contents. In general, the publication's name or logo may not appear as any part of the headline or text of such sections, except in conjunction with the magazine's own product or services."

Perhaps most ironic of all is who actually chaired the ABM's editorial ethics committee. You guessed it, Advertising Age Editor Scott Donaton.

What's that, you say? "Cheap shot?" Maybe. But we think it's fair, considering that Ad Age is such a powerful trade press standard. In our minds, it's kind of like The New York Times of the trade publishing world. Oops! Maybe that's not such a good analogy, after all. Or maybe it is, based on an editorial line the Times' ad sales team is stepping over. Recently, the paper unveiled plans to begin placing ads directly on its editorial content, something that would violate both the ABM's and its consumer magazine counterpart, the American Society of Magazine Editors', ethical guidelines. But newspaper standards apparently are different than those of magazines. So when the Times announced plans to begin placing "watermark" ads featuring the name or logo of advertisers over its stock quotations pages, it didn't try to disguise what it was doing. It issued a press release about it.

That doesn't mean the practice hasn't generated some concerns in editorial circles, including the Times' own. "The sky isn't falling at The Times. But I see a few worrisome indications that advertisers are being allowed to tap into the credibility of the news columns in ways that slip over the line," wrote the paper's Public Editor Byron Calame in its Sunday edition.

The ombudsman went on to suggest that the new branded watermark units, which sell for $41,850 each, should not be sold in too great a number until "senior editors and advertising executives review the effect on both readers and advertisers. If any signs emerge that reader perceptions of the independence of the news columns are being eroded, I hope alarms would go off in the newsroom at least. And I certainly intend to be watching."

So do we.