In April 2009, "Scholastic Parent & Child" decided to publish two ads on their cover. One for Smilebox and the other, unlabeled for an insert (also unlabeled) for Merck.
The American Society of Magazine Editors found this to be a dilemma going against teh guidlines used to decide whether or not magazines are eligible for their magazine awards. The Board decided that the decision, although was an innovative way to attempt to confront the recession and economic issues was "destorying waht makes magazines valuable and unique" and there were better ways to recover. They decided to notify the magazine for their violation.
A staff member is quoted saying they don't talk about it in the guideliens but that is because five years ago when they were written, an issue like this was not relevant.
This type of dilemma is interesting because unlike libel issues where there is a lot to prove, this issue is a more obvious breaking of the rules. This dilemma relates more to those concerned with running a piece or not becuase of ethical reasons. In the case of Scholastic Parent & Child, they felt it was ethical to have not only one ad but two. But the main problem in my eyes, although I would rather only see ads inside is that once was not labeled advertising which makes me as a reader doubt the credibility of the source. In the end, the advertisements do not have as much backlash as libeling someone, but they do affect the reputation of the magazine and how viewers react to the prodcut.
Here is the link for the entire article and other ASME decisions.
No comments:
Post a Comment