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.

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.”
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…”

It’s not about the medium, guys!

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.”

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.

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?