Give Ziff Davis a Break
I have the utmost respect for Paul Conley and think he is one of the true class acts in media. It is well-known, however, that he and I disagree on the use of in-text ads … particularly Vibrant Media’s IntelliTXT product. Paul believes that there is no place for these kinds of ads on any reputable web site and his latest post takes Ziff to task because they reinstated in-text ads. He calls for the ABM and ASBPE to cut ties with Ziff and for the editors to, in essence, go on strike in protest.
To be sure, Paul has a couple good points. First, it really is ridiculous that Ziff would put IntelliTXT ads on their editorial mission page. I’m in total agreement with Paul, but probably not for the same reasons. (I’m hearing Paul cringe even as I write this.) These ads are only supposed to go on content pages. They are not supposed to go on navigation or general information pages because it is not relevant, does not help the reader at that point, does not help the publisher at that point, nor does it comply with the agreements I am familiar with regarding the placement of those ads. Hopefully that was just an unintentional implementation issue, but Ziff … take IntelliTXT off all non-content pages.
He has a quote from ASBPE as to why there is no place for IntelliTXT-style ads in a reputable online publication even, and probably especially, on content pages:
“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.”
Let’s disect this.
A) “Hypertext links should be placed at the discretion and approval of editors.” Good questions indeed should be asked by editors. Are the links relevant? Is the information useful to the reader? Sometimes the best solution to problem is an advertiser’s product or service and these links can be useful if implemented well. Are the links deceptive or misleading? More on this later…
B) “Advertising and sponsored links should be clearly distinguishable from editorial, and labeled as such.” Look at this screenshot from a Ziff web page.
Link 1 shows an IntelliTXT link. It has a double-underline and is in a completely different color from any editorial link. When the visitor moves the mouse over the link (they don’t even have to click mind you), the ad appears and is clearly labeled as an advertisement. The visitor does not have to click. Thus it meets the criteria … it is “clearly distinguishable from editorial, and labeled as such.” Link 2 shows a standard editorial link. It is bold and in blue … very different from the ad. Link 3 is also an editorial link, but progromatically links to other contextually relevant content on the site. Again, it is bold and blue indicating an editorial link, but also has the magnifying glass indicating that it’s slightly different. Interestingly, this link is also powered by IntelliTXT, however it is not a paid ad, but links to related content.
 C) “Contextual links within editorial content should not be sold … unless it is pertinent to the editorial content or helpful to the reader.” Now THIS is where things come open for interpretation. I can tell you from experience that many 3rd party text link vendors (Google, Yahoo, Vibrant Media IntelliTXT, etc.) do not do a good job of making sure the content of the contextual ad link is truly relevant to the site’s audience … especially in B2B markets. This is why at Penton we did not implement IntelliTXT on many of our sites … and why we did not even implement Google AFC/AFS on some sites. But the ASBPE wisely leaves the door open! If there is a site where the content of contextual link ad is indeed relevant to the content and helpful to the reader, it is well within ASBPE guidelines to use them. Editors, don’t just throw the baby out with the bathwater here. There are ways to implement IntelliTXT that are beneficial to your readers.
Sales and editorial must come together and find the right ways to implement new revenue streams. I can tell you from having worked with nearly all of our publications at Penton Media during a very difficult financial time, that it’s not only something that can be done, it’s something that must be done for a media company to survive. It’s public knowledge how tough Penton’s financial situation was, but both sides of the house, sales and editiorial, came together and found ways to successfully implement new revenue streams with integrity. I’m not saying IntelliTXT saved Penton’s bacon singlehandedly, but it was implemented with integrity, with the cooperation of editorial, and sure helped save a few people’s jobs, … perhaps even an editor’s or two.
My plea to all sales and editorial teams at any publication: you are on the same team. Work together to find ways to implement new ad programs that both maintain integrity and still generate revenue. There is a way to do this with IntelliTXT and more situations like these will emerge as technology develops (ads in RSS feeds, anyone?). But you have to find ways to work together or there may be no more battleground on which to fight each other.
17 Responses to “ “Give Ziff Davis a Break”
Leave a Reply
About Me
Follow / Connect
Hi Eric,
Perhaps I’m not being clear. Although I think that ASBPE is very clear: “Whether for editorial or advertising information, hypertext links should be placed at the discretion and approval of editors.”
Ziff Davis’ editors aren’t placing the ads. Ziff Davis editors aren’t approving the ads. And that is a violation of the ethics guidelines. That’s a clear as can be.
ASBPE also says “Contextual links within editorial content should not be sold.” I’m not sure how much clearer anyone can be. ASBPE says “don’t sell links.” ASBPE also says that links, when place by editors, shouldn’t point to a vendor’s site unless it’s “pertinent to the editorial content or helpful to the reader.†ASBPE is NOT saying, as you seem to be suggesting, that it’s OK to sell “pertinent” links.
Furthermore, there is nothing implied in any ethics policy that I have ever read that says the rules don’t apply during difficult financial times.
Ads in editorial are a violation of the ethics rules. End of story. Just like selling puff pieces in exchange for ads. Or having reporters work for a commission on ad sales. Or offering to attack a competitor in exchange for cash. Or writing a profile in exchange for trip to Hong Kong.
This stuff is wrong. It’s always wrong.
Ah, I see your point, Paul. Perhaps I am misreading the ASBPE guidelines. You are saying that ASBPE says links should not be sold. Period (not comma). Then, editorial links should not link directly to a vendor’s web site unless pertinent. What a difference a little piece of punctuation makes. If the ASBPE meant a period where they have a comma (and I would love for someone representing that organization to comment here), then you are correct. IntelliTXT and other contextual type links would be in violation of ASBPE guidelines.
But even if that is the interpretation, I don’t think it’s the sales side, editorial side, ASBPE, or any of us pundits who will decide what is right or not. It will be the readers. If readers don’t like the links, they will let us know in droves (not one or two complaints) and leave our sites.
IntelliTXT can be implemented well in such a way as it is beneficial to readers. But again, that’s my opinion and why it’s great to have different voices look at things from different perspectives!
Hi,
It is always great to “look at things from different perspectives.” And I always appreciate your perspective.
Also, I think the perspective that we most want to hear from now is that of ASBPE’s ethics committee. I’ve reached out to the folks there. And I’m hoping that they will respond soon.
Let me get this straight. Are you suggesting there is a “situational ethic” issue that allows a distressed media company (one that is distressed because of decisions by financial people) to use whatever means necessary — even if leveraging the editorial credibility of its brands — to save jobs? As for your screen shot — I think it displays how users can be easily confused by what a “link” is — there is nothing that is clearly marked about what’s taking place there. Furthermore, if business side of a media company suggested something like “text ads” for a magazine, there would be no debate — it would be dismissed immediately. That said, I am a proponent of contextual ads and even if they get it wrong sometimes — big time — they work to benefit both the advertiser and reader in most instances. My complaint is the placement of such ads within the text of a newsstory.
Also, when you say readers will let you know. How? Do you think readers will actually take time to register a complaint? Do you track how many of your readers use Firefox with the inteliTXT block plug in activated?
Hi Rex. Thanks for the great feedback. No, I’m not advocating situational ethics. Ethics are ethics and I truly believe that if you do things right it will pay off in the end. My main point was that the Internet is changing a lot of the ground rules and that sales and editorial must work together to navigate the changing landscape. I can remember in the mid-90s when even having an IT security related ad on the same web page as an IT security article was considered a huge violation of editorial ethics. But then we all came to learn that readers actually LIKED contextual advertising (CAVEAT: IF WELL IMPLEMENTED), found it useful, and were smart enough to differentiate editorial from advertising. I think the same thing can be accomplished with in-text links, but again, that’s only my personal opinion.
As for the screenshot, while Ziff did differentiate the different types of links, I agree that Ziff could have done a better job of it.
How will readers lets us know? I think there are three ways. Quantitatively, traffic will decline and as will response to ads. Qualitatively, I know that whenever we tried to implement something (either ad-driven, editorial-driven, or technical-driven) that the readers didn’t like, we heard about it to no end from our readers. But then again, we really strove to solicit that kind of feedback from our readers by making it easy on any page to give us feedback. Reader focus groups are another great method to see the true response of readers to new features / functions and something that I recommend for ANY change a publisher plans to do with their web site.
Hi again,
I think the difference here is clear. Eric is arguing that “the Internet is changing a lot of the ground rules.” I disagree (and I think Rex disagrees as well.)
Rather, I would argue that the Internet hasn’t changed the ground rules, and we shouldn’t let it.
The ground rules are quite clear whether you’re publishing on paper or on a screen. It’s the editorial department that controls what does, and does not, go into a story.
Eric, we’ve disagreed on this before, and will likely continue to do so.
The problem with IntelliTXT is it throws the users’ concept of site navigation off. Jakob Nielsen says it far better than I could, so I’ll link to his full column here on the topic .
The “distinctions” you’re making between the double underline in a different color and a single color underline are too subtle for the average user. I’d challenge you to take ordinary Web users, put them in a foxus group and see what the call the IntelliTXT links. My bet is that they will lump them in with hypertext links and call them as “links.”
The idea that they get the distinction because when they start to interact with them that a label comes up is really just justifications. The difference between this and Google ads is that Google ads are in a segregated area of the site and have visible labelling, not hidden labelling. Why does google segregate its ad content and not intersperse them, it is usability.
Yes, I know I worship at the altar of Mr. Nielsen a lot, but if he says something is confusing I’m likely to agree with him.
Figured you guys needed another voice in this debate. I see the starkly right on both sides, especially with regard to the two most important points that have been made here, which are that we should not allow the Internet to change standards of editorial independence (Paul), and that the Internet is changing all the standards like it or not (Eric).
I’ll only add these two thoughts to this interesting debate.
1) While I get Paul’s critical point of distinction about the LOCATION of the ads WITHIN editorial content and how this defines the clear step over the foul line, I believe in reality the difference is extremely marginal (from a user experience point of view) between a box of Google ads placed right next to a story and keyed for relevance directly off of the content of that story, and those same text ads appearing in a pop-up box and keyed directly into the story relevant word by relevant word. Links are helpful. It is the nature of the web to provide rings of links that enable you to follow lines of interest and inquiry. In spirit, the Intellitxt concept is an aid. While dancing flash display ads may be experientially intrusive, in point of fact underlined words simply aren’t. They are there to be clicked only if desired. And not one word of editorial was influenced in any way by this arrangement of proximity advertising.
2) What makes the experience so frustrating from my point of view is simply how dopey the intelitxt ads wind up being. I found the word “federal” underlined and it led to a single HP ad. The word “video” led to Blackberry. Oy vey! But if words of interest lead to boxes of relevant links, I think users would be perfectly capable of understanding what was supplied by the good hand of an editor and what came from the automated and commercialized non-brains of web tools. In fact, the best intellitxt link I saw was pretty good. . . I rolled over one important and arcane conceptual word and the pop-up box delivered not just text ads from sponsors but also a list of related stories about that word right from ziff (sort of a vertical search feature that provided “more like this word” instead of a “more like this story” which we see all the time).
PS. There is a much better measure of whether users like this stuff than checking the complaint department: the links will or wont get clicked on. If they get clicked on, I guess people find it helpful. If they don’t, it won’t take Ziff long to think of them as annoying.
PPS. Safari on a Mac automatically blocks this nonsense. So does AOL’s built in browser. I could only see it by opening up Firefox and downgrading my settings. Funny how technology fights technology like spy vs spy.
This is certainly a great debate all around.
As an editorial guy first and foremost, I’ve always felt that the line advertising and meaningful editorial content needs to be ALWAYS the first priority if you are truly trying to serve your audience. Don’t give them a chance to second guess your editorial intent.
Wrap ads around the story, get sponsors to pay for elaborate content section sponsorships, heck even put a ‘related links that pay us’ section at the bottom of a story. But intertwining advertising and true content links is one of those things that drives me crazy
The Internet does change LOTS of rules on just about every aspect of the media industry. But one thing is must NEVER change for a TRUE editorial content provider (news specifically), is ensuring that the audience is never left guessing what is real live original editorial content (or truly relevant links to a story) versus something thats just advertising.
Mitch, you hit my biggest complaint with IntelliTXT, Google, and any other contextual ad system that I’ve seen … be it in-line or not. More often that not, the ads are NOT as relevant as they should be … especially in a B2B environment. These systems were designed for a consumer audience and I’ve even taken Google AFC off several sites because the ads just weren’t relevant to a B2B audience. IndustryBrains solve this problem a bit in the specific B2B markets they serve or by allowing you to sell your own contextual ads.
But all of this is still a bit off the topic of whether in-text links are even something any publisher should be doing anyway…
Disclaimer: I hate intellitxt ads and their ilk, however, I take issue with this:
The American Society of Business Publication Editors (ASBPE) Guide to Preferred Editorial Practices states: “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.â€
Since when did Editors become responsible for bottom line P/L? this is a storm in a tea-cup. It’s a publisher decision, not an editorial one, and at the end of the day, the bottom line seems to rule all.
Eric,
I think your screenshot and the response to it says it all. There is not a clear consensus that the links are identified as ads. If we can’t come to an agreement on that, how can we expect readers to? How can we encourage our editors to link more in their stories and approach writing for the Web as a medium when we deliberately begin confusing readers as to which links are editorial vs. which are advertising. In my opinion, this sells out the editorial value proposition. How can readers trust the source of this information if they know that writing content with high-value keywords is going to generate more money for the publication. It doesn’t matter if that practice is employed or not, just the fact that the question could be raised. Actions speak louder than words… say whatever you want on your editorial policy.
If you tread edit like a distribution medium for marketers, it will be viewed as such. Advertisers have no ability to influence print content, yet online we’re willing to give them direct access to our words to overlay a marketing message on it. Seems to be as simple as that.
With editors facing church-and-state pressures on Webinars, Podcasts, and custom e-Media products, do we really need to put the core product into a questionable situation?
Thanks for airing the hypertext issue. It’s a good one, and one that stimulated a lot of discussion at ASPBE when we put together our Guidelines for Preferred Editorial Practices. The latest debate over Ziff Davis has turned out to be a good opportunity to show how our ethics-code machinery works at ASBPE. Jeff Seglin, an ethics writer who advises the ASBPE committee, and helped us draw it up, gave Folio: an initial response yesterday when a reporter asked for ASBPE’s view. Now, though, the committee has had a chance to discuss the issue in light of our Guidelines. The committee members came back strongly supporting our statement that editors should have the final say about the use of hypertext links in editorial–whether hyptertext edit links or links to advertisers.
There was a feeling that the code might be misread by some (although it is unlikely) because of some punctuation in the section headed “D.Approve Hypterxt Links.†That was a point you made in one follow-up to the initial posting. We’re going to change the wording so that the paragraph ends this way:
“Contextual links within editorial content should not be sold. If an editor allows a link, it generally should not link to a vendor’s Web site, unless it is pertinent to the editorial content or helpful to the reader.â€
Web-based journalism, including hypertext linking, offers exciting new ways for B2B journalists to tell their stories. But it does present dangers that exist in a different form from those faced by print publications. We feel the code offers clear guidance: Editors, not publishers or ad-sales folks, should make ALL final decisions on the use of links in edit copy. Also, vendor links in editorial text should NOT be sold under any condition.
Again, it is very good that you are airing this debate. And I note that it is widening by the day. That’s one reason why ASBPE set up a living review mechanism, to make sure our Guidelines remain relevant and useful.
Scene: 3,000 years ago at a crossroads in the woods—anywhere
Person #1: “I am painting an arrow on this big rock to show travelers the way to our village, where they can get food and rest under shelter.â€
Person #2: “Yes, that will be helpful to travelers, I agree. But, it would be even more helpful if you put my mark on there. That same mark is on the door of my hut. People will be happy to know that I can provide a meal and a straw bed in return for something of value to me. I can give you this tasty squirrel for your trouble…â€
It’s not about the medium, guys!
[...] We often say that you can sell a sponsorship to just about anything, from lanyards to seatbacks in the session rooms. But, when it comes to your event Web site, think carefully before wading into the muck that some magazines have been foundering in lately: Selling links within editorial content on a Web site. (For more reading on how this is playing out in the publication world, see these posts.) Here’s what the hoo-ha is about, according to Folio magazine: [Journalism guru Paul] Conley’s wrath is directed at Ziff’s decision to use an advertising feature called IntelliTXT developed by Vibrant Media that hyperlinks keywords within an article to a pop-up text ad. When the cursor is moved over the hyperlinked word or phrase in an article, such as “software†or “server technology,†a pop-up text ad appears that links to a sponsor’s Web site. To Conley, and others, the practice skirts the issue of advertising transparency, even though the pop-up window is labeled as an advertisement and the hyperlinks are uniquely formatted, in this case, in green with a double underline. The service can also be used as pop-ups to alert readers to related articles. [...]
Just because evolving technology changes the medium through which journalism is delivered doesn’t mean that it also changes the ethics upon which that journalism is based.
This is really not a new issue. For example, we would never permit a print advertiser to mimic the design template of our magazine so that their ad will look just like our editorial … not that there are not publishers who (if they thought they could get away with it) would try to do just that. Likewise, we don’t submit our editorial copy to the sales team beforehand so that they can make clarifying changes that, in their opinions, the readers would find useful.
Rather, we (editors, readers and publishers) have always insisted that there be a clear distinction between advertising and editorial content, and technology has not changed that.
It has always been the editor’s job to serve as the final gatekeeper for the integrity of the editorial product, be it in print, online or in person. Our audience expects that from us, and the ASBPE guidelines are pretty clear on that simple, basic responsibility. It is the editor’s responsibility (not the publisher’s or the eMedia business manager) to make that editorial ethical decision. If the publisher disagrees strongly enough about a particular decision, then he/she should fire the editor.
It’s only complicated if we want to make it complicated.