Sometimes I do very stupid things, even when I know in advance that they're stupid. Call it a thick head or a stubborn streak, but I just don't learn.
I am about to do one of those stupid things right now. I may live to regret it, but I need to say something about this business and the role of the trade press. It will upset some people, but I hope that–if you are not one of the offended–you at least find it somewhat entertaining, albeit in the same way we are drawn to look at a particularly bad car accident when we drive past. Also, I know that my job is to run information in FOH that you, the readers, care about. The following may seem a bit "inside" and more about publishing than live event audio, but it does affect you, and sometimes I have to take a step back and address that part of the industry.
Earlier this month, we were putting together the chart information for this month's Product Gallery and were puzzled when a number of manufacturers failed to respond with the requested info. That confusion ended–and the concern set in–when we made follow-up calls. Multiple companies said that they didn't respond because they thought they had to buy an ad to be included.
My first thought was, "How could they think that? The request came from the editor, not the ad rep." But then, I remembered some of the stories about how some folks in the trade press do business, and it made much more sense.
The rest of this diatribe paints with a pretty broad brush. There are many of you for whom it doesn't apply, and we both know it, so don't take this personally. But if you don't know it, and it does apply to you, well, we can't print what I really think.
My journalistic training (as is the case with most schooling) was very "black and white" and clear in teaching us about the separation between advertising and editorial. It was, they told us, a brick wall never to be breached. They even pointed out that in many organizations, the two departments were on different floors, or even in different buildings.
When I got out into the working world, I discovered that there was a lot more gray than I had been taught, but I still worked hard to maintain editorial integrity. In the past decade or so, that has become harder to do all the time, and there are way too many trade publications that do not even make the attempt.
The first putrid whiff of this approach came when I was at another magazine and found myself fighting with the suits about our editorial direction and how to respond to advertisers, both actual and potential, whose feelings had been hurt in some way. If you ever run into me at a trade show or gig, ask me about the infamous "Dude from GL" story.
More recently, we have had manufacturers tell us that other publications offered them packages of editorial coverage, advertising and cover placement, and insisted on the same thing from us. Or people on the marketing side have told me that if they send a press release–no matter how insipid or unworthy of coverage–to specific publications, that they know it will run because they advertise. Or I pick up trade publications and see stories written by people who are considered "staff" by the magazine, but who make a significant part of their living doing public relations for companies in this business.
Here is where this all affects you, the reader. If publications are mixing the functions of editorial and advertising, how do you know the difference between the two? How do you know if you are getting "real" information or some corporate marketing spin? With no line drawn between editorial and advertising, you don't.
So, let's make sure we have something straight. Editorial content in FOH is not for sale. Period. There are no packages that include coverage with your ad. Do we try to support those who support us? You bet. But we also cover products and services from companies and people who never bought a single ad. We make editorial decisions because the product, service or show is cool, or we think it will be of interest to you our readers.
Secondly, while we occasionally run feature stories submitted by PR people representing a specific company, it is very rare–mostly because there are very few PR people out there who understand that a story is only newsworthy if it covers the whole production and not just the often-exaggerated contribution made by their client. I think we have run perhaps a half-dozen stories from sources like this in almost three years of publishing FOH. And I really think that the ones we did run were well-written, informative and balanced looks at a certain production or install.
Third: We do not print every release that hits our e-mail box. Part of the job of any press outlet (and maybe even more so for trade pubs) is to act as a filter so readers are not inundated with useless info. I (and some other folks out there–you know who you are) take this responsibility VERY seriously. I have had companies call and complain that their press release was not run verbatim. I wear those complaints as a badge of honor.
About a month ago, I was packing for my recent move and came across a letter written by a publisher my wife once worked for (you are still missed, Jerry). It said a lot of what I have said here. I sat looking at that letter for a long time and wondering if I still have the intestinal fortitude to be in a business that I see as becoming less ethical and having less integrity year by year. I am holding out for as long as I can. I owe that to the people who came before me who had it right, and taught me to keep it all in proper perspective as well. I will keep trying to make magazines that "get it" and keep my integrity. Even if that pisses some people off and means fewer ad pages (though the ad rep might not feel quite the same way about it…). I actually still believe in separation of church and state. And of advertising and editorial.
