A big silence out there - ethics in the publishing industry

The basis of an honest industry is to have clearly articulated ethical boundaries. FOLIO:'s survey suggests, however, that the parameters are ill-defined, at best.

Early in 1993, Lawrence Wilhelm, the publisher of Lodging, faced one of the more difficult decisions of his career. The magazine industry was still staggering from a prolonged ad slump, and magazines covering the hotel industry weren't spared. According to a partial analysis from Patterson Advertising Reports, the category saw ad pages fall to 2,362 in 1992, down from a high of 3,381 in 1988. "We had a multinational corporation trying to run advertorials that weren't marked," recalls Wilhelm, who at the time was ad sales director of the Washington, D.C.-based magazine, published by the American Hotel and Motel Association. "It was worth $40,000, about 5 percent of our budget--it was pretty big. The competitive pressure was intense. My assumption was that the competition would do it."

Ultimately, Lodging declined the business--and so did its competitors. "I don't think the value of accommodating this advertiser was worth weakening our editorial credibility," Wilhelm says.

A moral victory? Yes, absolutely. If only all ethical questions could be resolved so decisively in black and white. But the answers we give to the difficult managerial and ethical questions are more likely to come in any of a thousand shades of gray.

Last summer, FOLIO: conducted an industry-wide ethics survey of magazine executives. The 42 questions concerned hypothetical situations ranging from something like Wilhelm's predicament, to sex in the workplace, to using the fax machine for personal work. Four hundred five publishing professionals--from both trade and consumer titles--responded. Their responses were detailed, impassioned, skeptical. It was obvious that these were people who care about the subject, even if they do have varying definitions of what comprises ethical behavior.

The results were sometimes startling, sometimes reassuring, sometimes disturbing. A question about editors taking advertiser-sponsored trips, for example, revealed that large numbers in all disciplines would let the advertiser foot the bill. "Everybody's going; |the advertiser~ has a budget to do that. So why should you be the one who says, 'I'm going to be the one who pays $3,000?'" asks Howard S. Rauch, a Tenafly, New Jersey-based trade-magazine editorial consultant. "That's too extreme."

And Lodging's Wilhelm agrees that such a trip is generally okay, although he acknowledges that it raises the unspoken issue of quid pro quo.

Others take the opposite approach. "If a seminar is worth covering, we'd pay for it," says one of our respondents. Boston-based editorial consultant John Brady worries about an easy willingness to let advertisers pay. "I think that's horrifying," he says. "Once again, the reader has lost. It shows erosion of editorial integrity."

Ethical ambiguity

More than anything, FOLIO:'s survey indicates an ambiguity about publishing industry values, a willingness, in many cases, to play fast and loose with ethics. (And this ambiguity comes from those people who care enough about the subject to have responded to the survey.) Nearly 34 percent of editors would not even think of letting an important source read a story before publication. But 65 percent say that practice is okay.

Two-thirds of our respondents would be outraged if a special advertising section ran in their magazine's style and typeface. But nearly all the rest, including more than 26 percent of the editors, don't have a problem with that. Throughout our survey, respondents were more likely to split 50:50 than 90:10. The survey also reveals a radical divergence of opinion about management policies and ethics among the various job disciplines. Editors, according to our results, are far more likely to hire an advertiser's son for an entry-level position from among a pool of more qualified applicants than are ad directors or publishers. (Only a fraction of the latter groups, 6.3 percent and 2.0 percent, respectively, would do this, while 31.5 percent of the editors indicated they were either very likely or somewhat likely to do so.) On the other hand, editors are significantly less likely than ad directors or publishers to grant a story subject the right to edit photos.

In another example, nearly half our respondents indicated they were either very likely or somewhat likely to go off the rate card to cut an important deal. Many said they believe rate cutting is primarily a financial, not ethical, decision. But consultant Rauch disagrees: "Trade magazines have managed to make themselves unimportant to their advertisers, and this is just another way of doing that," he says.

Does all this lead to the conclusion that publishing professionals, in spite of their striving, are no more--and maybe even less--ethical than people in other industries? Not necessarily, says Ridgefield, Connecticut-based consultant J. Wendell Forbes: "I think publishing is a higher calling. And I think that the editors lead the charge," he says.

But Everette E. Dennis, executive director of the Freedom Forum Media Studies Center at New York City's Columbia University, offers another view. "An organization like ours gets hundreds of calls dealing with ethical dilemmas," he says, "and very few are from magazines. We get many more from newspapers." Dennis observes, however, that the magazine industry is by far the most diverse medium in the country--more fragmented and varied in both editorial content and people than other media industries.

Many aspects of FOLIO:'s survey were anything but ambiguous. Among other findings are the following:

* Self-interest rules the day.

* Editors appear no more ethical than colleagues in other magazine disciplines, despite a self-image to the contrary.

* While ad directors demonstrate a willingness to do what they have to do to bring in the business, publishers, with some very interesting exceptions, demonstrate more restraint and a broader management perspective.

* There's a marketing opportunity for magazines--and individuals--that position themselves as ethically inviolable. In other words, ethics sells.

Ad directors under the gun

Ad directors took the most aggressive get-the-business stance in responses to the majority of ad-related questions. For example, when asked if, as an editor, they would assign a flattering profile of a former advertiser to woo that advertiser back, 26 percent of the ad directors said they were either very likely to do that or somewhat likely. By contrast, only 16.6 percent of publishers and 13 percent of the editors were so inclined. "As a director of sales, you face it constantly," says Lodging's Wilhelm. "Trying to bring in the ad dollars, you are constantly asked by your customers to step up to the line or over the line."

Ad directors were also more likely than editors or publishers to accommodate an advertiser's wish that a special advertising section be run in the magazine's typeface and style. They were least likely to ignore an advertiser's request that his ad be placed opposite an editorial mention of his product. About 30 percent of the ad directors indicated that they would insist that their editor cut unflattering remarks about an advertiser from an expose. Nevertheless, 27 percent of publishers and 26 percent of editors would do the same. "I'm loyal to the people who are putting money into my magazine," says one respondent. Says another, "There is no way I would cut my own throat." Overall, though, Rauch sees these numbers are encouraging. "The majority are saying, 'Nope, it runs.' I think that's terrific. |Advertisers~ may bluster, they may drop out, but if you're the key book, they're going to come back."

Magazine publishers, according to the survey, in fact as a moderating influence on their operations. Of the three disciplines, publishers, at 40.2 percent, were most likely to deny a source's request to read an article before it is published. Editors were more likely to give in to the demand, according to the results, with only 33.6 percent saying they would be either very likely or somewhat likely to deny the request. Similarly, when asked whether as editor they would insist on paying for their own lunch after having been invited out by a publicist, publishers were more likely than both editors and ad sales directors to pay their own way. In addition, publishers reported they were least likely to hire the advertiser's son. Says consultant Brady on the influence of a smart publisher, "A great magazine is never remembered for its advertising, and I think a great publisher recognizes that." Publishers protect their perks

Still, our respondents indicate that publishers like to reserve some of the "unofficial" perks of their position--including some that may violate company policies. For example, when asked whether they would use a company credit card for personal use while on a business trip, nearly a quarter of the publishers were likely to do so, while 20 percent of the editors and 16.7 percent of the ad directors indicated they were so inclined. "If traveling on a Saturday saves the company $900, I feel it is fair for the company to pick up personal expenses, as long as everything nets a company savings," explains one executive. In addition, 13.7 percent of the publishers said they were willing to use a secretary for assistance with moonlighting projects. By contrast, only 4.1 percent of editors and 6.3 percent of ad directors were similarly inclined. The majority of our respondents, however--including most publishers--frown on this behavior. "How stupid would somebody have to be to do this?" asks one respondent. Consultant Forbes offers an explanation: "Publishers participate in the making of the rules, and they're at liberty to break them. But double standards of any kind are absolutely the worst thing that can happen in any aspect of management."

Editorial integrity frayed?

If ad directors are doing what they have to do to get the business, and publishers are watching out for the big picture, are editors guarding the sanctity of the magazine's editorial content? Not necessarily, according to our results. As indicated above, about 27 percent of editors reported they would be either very likely or somewhat likely to okay a special advertising section emulating the magazine's own style and typeface. A significant minority of the editors who responded would also go along with a request to cut unflattering remarks about an advertiser. And 44.6 percent of the editors, a far greater percentage than either publishers or ad sales directors, are either very likely or somewhat likely to use faxes, copiers and phones for freelance projects. "Editors never have been and never will be the God-like creatures they imagine themselves to be," concludes one respondent. Another unflattering finding: About 45 percent of the editors responding would be very likely or somewhat likely to buy stock in companies whose products or services they cover. This self-confessed impropriety astounded some observers. "It's almost like there's a myth of journalistic integrity," says Glen T. Cameron, an assistant professor of advertising and public relations at the University of Georgia. Cameron, who is doing research on "information pollution," adds, "If you look at studies, you'll find that journalists hold themselves morally above their sources. It may be that they're no better or worse than anyone else. It belies the depiction of a journalist as a muckraker." Cameron notes that the survey shows there are a lot more editors who would object to writing the profile to woo back a wayward advertiser than editors who would object to a special ad section in the magazine's typeface. "Being indifferent to the process of what's making up the whole book is a concern," Cameron says. "It's like, 'When it comes to my personal work, I guard that as a journalist. But an advertorial, that's advertising's responsibility.'"

Freelance writers might take heart from the fact that more than three-quarters of respondents either were not likely or definitely would not co-opt a story idea suggested by a freelancer. "An idiot at a TV station once did this to me," wrote one respondent. "I hope he's homeless now." Still, 19.2 percent of editors said they were very likely or somewhat likely to commandeer a good idea. Many observers see a decline in magazine-industry journalistic ethics. "I've been in the business about 18 years, and I've seen a real erosion of ethics," says Laurel Harper, editor of How, a Cincinnati-based graphic-design title published by F&W Publications. "The last company I was at, the ad director came in every day saying, 'You have to write about this company, you have to write about that company.' That's how they sold their ads. Later, that person was made associate publisher. Not good. I think there's something missing in the journalism schools. Part of it should be ethics."

The Golden Rule in the office?

Did respondents believe they would treat colleagues any better than outsiders? Not necessarily. Only about 33 percent of the respondents said they were very likely or somewhat likely to make a formal complaint about a co-worker who made racist or sexist jokes about colleagues.

But when respondents were asked to imagine themselves as the recipients of a supervisor's sexual advances, the vast majority--nearly 82 percent--said they would complain. "That |response~ is echoing the marching anthem of the times," says Brady. "There's no time for that. That's old-style business."

Respondents were asked which ad sales rep they would hire in a search narrowed down to two candidates: a woman in her early fifties with a strong resume and many years of experience, or a promising woman in her mid-twenties who is attractive. The great majority across disciplines would hire the older woman, although female executives were a lot more likely to do so than male executives. "We're not running an escort service," wrote one respondent. "Are men more turned on by a good business sense or a good body?" asked another female executive.

Integrity has a dollar value

Many of those interviewed for this survey complained of a "bean-counter" mentality pervading the industry, poisoning the editorial well and polluting the information stream. What these people kept coming back to was the idea that integrity sells, and that's where the smart publisher should take his or her stand. "It may reach a point where there's so much pollution that anyone who has pure water can sell it," says the University of Georgia's Cameron.

Adds How's Harper, "If you're not fair and honest, people are going to catch on in the long run. And if you are, people will want to come into your magazine in the long run."

Editorial consultant Brady tells the story of a Midwestern city-magazine editor, who, years ago, when the magazine was owned by the local Chamber of Commerce, was under pressure to write only nice things about the city. And the editor refused. Eventually, he was fired, but the situation repeated itself under succeeding editors until, finally, the Chamber sold the magazine. As for the first editor, being fired led him to another opportunity that ultimately enabled him to make a great business deal and retire wealthy at 50. The moral? "I think you can travel a long way on integrity," Brady says.

Methodology

FOLIO: mailed its management/ethics survey to 1,164 publishing executives in two mailings in August 1993. One-third of those who received the survey were publishers, another one-third were ad directors. The remaining recipients were editors. Four hundred five executives responded to the survey, yielding an overall response rate of 34.4 percent. Of those responding, 402 supplied sufficient data for tabulation. Forty-five percent of the respondents were from business magazines; 32 percent were from consumer titles; 18 percent were from companies with a mix of titles and the rest gave no response. Survey results were tabulated by L & L Data Services, Trumbull, Connecticut.

COPYRIGHT 1994 Copyright by Media Central Inc., A PRIMEDIA Company. All rights reserved.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group