A study by Starcom MediaVest last fall found that 65 percent of consumers think that editorial mentions of a product have been paid for. They may sound like an overly cynical bunch, but it turns out they’re pretty close to being right. A new study finds that nearly half of senior marketing executives have paid for editorial or broadcast placement and that many of those who haven’t would do so if the opportunity arose. According to Manning Selvage & Lee, a New York-based public relations firm and sister company of Starcom MediaVest, 24 percent of the 266 marketing executives surveyed said their company had paid for editorial placement. An additional 9 percent said their company had paid for broadcast placement, and 16 percent had paid for both. Of those who had not paid for these things in the past, 46 percent said they would consider it in the future. Of the roughly one-quarter of respondents who said they would not pay for placements, 43 percent said it represented an ethical violation, 32 percent said they weren’t convinced it worked, and 22 percent said that ad and editorial content should be distinct. With product placement also increasing in all manner of media, the topic promises to remain up for debate over the next few years. Mark Hass, global CEO of Manning Selvage & Lee and former deputy managing editor of the Detroit News, talks to Media Life about the line between advertising and editorial, why marketers should be worried about the findings of the study, and how the line between editorial and advertising has blurred over the years.

Why did you undertake this study? Were you surprised at how widespread this practice is?
 
The idea for the study was shaped first by my personal experience as both a journalist and a marketing professional. I had encountered a number of instances and amassed a fair bit of anecdotal evidence that suggested this was a real industry issue.

Then, last fall, MS&L's sister company, Starcom MediaVest, did a survey of consumers and found that a high percentage of them believed that product editorial coverage in consumer publications had been paid for by advertisers. Our study was designed to explore whether there was an issue with marketers so that a public discussion might ensue.
 

What does this say about marketers and journalists? Are marketers that savvy, or are journalists that lazy?
 
Marketers are ill-informed about the value of the separation between advertising and editorial coverage. The credibility of news media is directly related to the extent to which readers and audiences believe the editorial product is produced by independent journalists. That credibility is the essence of the value created by editorial mentions of products or ideas.
 

Is this practice more widespread than it was, say, five or 10 years ago?
 
There's no hard data to answer this, but I believe the increasing fragmentation of news media and the increasing pressure marketing executives are under to guarantee results has created an atmosphere where bad practices, both within the marketing industry and the news media, are more likely to take hold.
 

What sort of media outlets does this occur in most commonly? Least?
 
Again, there is no data to say for sure one way or the other, but intuitively it seems the crowded consumer print category, cable and local news, and internet media are most vulnerable because of competitive financial pressures. The mainstream traditional media, whose newsrooms still enjoy editorial independence, are less vulnerable.
 

How much can this practice hurt public perception of media and its trustworthiness?
 
Consumers are already losing trust in the news media for a variety or reasons. If pay for play becomes common, I believe we will lose the fundamental value of a free and independent news media in the U.S. If no one believes what they read or see, everything becomes opinion and nothing is news.
 

Are there certain areas of marketing (that is, for restaurants or cars, etc.) where this is more likely to take place?
 
I have no way to say.
 

How much does the competitive environment of media these days contribute to this practice? That is, do you see a lot of advertisers threatening to take their business elsewhere if they don't get a glowing review in a magazine, etc.?
 
Twenty years ago, you may have seen open threats. I believe the process is much more subtle now, one where the quid pro quo isn't as obvious, but in many ways more nefarious.
 

It seems like lately there's been more attention paid to pay-for-play, with the payola investigations in radio and studies about how often it occurs on local TV news. Do you see this practice lessening over the next few years?
 
I hope an open and aggressive discussion of these issues within the marketing community and news media will put this genie back in the bottle. As with any ethical issue, the only way to address this is through open dialogue.