Rebuilding the Chinese wall

How much of what you read in newspapers can be trusted? Thania Gopal investigates the blurring line between editorial and "advertorial" content in the South African print media.

“Imagine being whisked away to an exotic island in the Zanzibar Archipelago, free to laze on the golden beaches, swim in the clear blue Indian ocean and soak up the African sun while sipping the local brew….”
The journalist, breathlessly, tries to capture the moment in increasingly lyrical prose.

But just beneath the copy sits an attractive advertisement featuring “special deals” to visit the beautiful islands of Zanzibar. Coincidence?

Most people open their newspapers and expect to find the truth. And nothing but the truth. At least as far as editorial content is concerned.

Readers expect journalists to maintain their independence from the advertising department and boldly shrug off any influence. While most readers understand the commercial imperatives behind advertising, they also want advertisements to be clear and not portrayed as editorial content so that they may choose what to read or discard.

Rogier van Bakel, former editor-in-chief of Creativity, a magazine specialising in advertising and design, emphasises this relationship built on trust between publications and their readers on the Christian Science Monitor website. He says publications which “allow marketers a stealthy foothold represent a destructive, short-term approach that could cost them loyalty and circulation”.

In an email interview with SMF, Dr Adrian Hadland, chief research specialist in the Democracy and Governance unit at the Human Science Research Council (HSRC), says the increasing prevalence of advertising messages cloaked beneath the veil of editorial copy is a disturbing trend. Hadland is co-author of a study released by the HSRC and the University of Witwatersrand (Wits) titled Advertising in the News: Paid-For Content and the South African Print Media.

Hadland says South Africa is experiencing a large increase in unmarked paid-for content – that is editorial content that somebody has paid for in order for it to appear. According to Hadland, the reason for this increase is that “media companies, like other corporate entities, need to make money to survive and thrive”.
In the past, a distinct divide existed between editorial and advertising content. But this separation, commonly known as the “Chinese Wall”, may be under threat.

There is no denying the commercial pressures and stiff competition for advertising revenue facing the media industry. According to the Newsroom Barometer 2008, a study published by the World Editor’s Forum, 42% of editors perceived the main threat to their editorial independence in the future as being related to their newspapers' financial dependence, whether on shareholders or advertisers.

The International Research and Exchanges Board (IREX) analyses the media environment in over 20 countries. According to the IREX website, total ad spend in South Africa, excluding self-promotion, was R20.1 billion in 2006.

Of the R20.1 billion spent on advertising, print holds the highest share at 40%. This includes newspapers (28%) and magazines (12%), and amounts to over R8 billion.

Even though revenue is derived from publication sales and advertising, IREX says cover prices tend to cover only production and printing while advertising funds the rest of the business.

Addressing a group of journalism students from Stellenbosch University, features editor of South Africa’s Financial Mail, Sven Lünsche, says 85% of the publication’s revenue comes from advertising. Referring to the comparatively low price of the publication, Lünsche says the “most important thing is circulation, not the cover price”. Part of FM’s strategy is to keep the cover price low, to increase circulation and therefore attract more advertising.

The HSRC study contends that increasing economic pressures and competition for advertising revenue has resulted in publications searching for new and innovative strategies to attract more advertising.
One of these strategies is to “develop and devise new forms of paid-for content, including the use of sections and supplements that are targeted to attract advertising and the packaging together of editorial content and advertising material for sale to advertisers”.

Sometimes the adoption of unmarked paid-for content as a strategy for revenue growth may have the reverse effect. Leadership magazine discovered this the hard way when it was revealed in Parliament that the SABC had paid over R 100 000 for their CEO, Dali Mpofu, to grace the cover, according to Anton Harber, Professor of Journalism at Wits University on his website TheHarbinger.co.za.

Harber says Leadership is not the only influential publication to “stoop this low”. "Every day you can open newspapers and magazines which have features, supplements and surveys which are paid for – and this fact is either heavily disguised or completely hidden.”

The boundaries between advertising and journalism “have steadily been getting fuzzier,” says Peter Hart, media analyst at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) on the Christian Science Monitor website. “It’s not clear anymore which is exactly what advertisers want.”

Corporate marketing analyst and former head of strategic planning and public affairs for BMW South Africa, Chris Moerdyk, refers to the increasing use of “blackmail advertising” on the Bizcommunity website. He claims that “reputable mass media” are using paid-for advertorials, which are “advertisements disguised as editorial content” without warning consumers that “they are reading an ad and not a news story”.

A key area of research in Advertising in the News examines the use of signalling – “the practice of clearly marking advertising copy as ‘Advertisement’”. Labels previously used include “Special”, “Advertorial”, or “Commercial Feature”. The authors suggest that this practice “has either disappeared or is too obscure for readers to identify”.

Hadland says the lack of adequate signalling undermines the integrity of journalism. “It means readers can’t trust what they read and therefore damages magazines and newspapers as sources of real facts and information...”

In an email interview, Dr Herman Wasserman, Extraordinary Associate Professor at Stellenbosch University and lecturer at Newcastle University in the UK, says signposting or signalling to the reader is often “deliberately vague or made to resemble editorial copy in the rest of the publication.”

Wasserman believes the trespassing of the “Chinese Wall” goes much further than just “advertorials” masked as editorial copy. “Lazy journalists also take over press releases meant to promote commercial ventures under the smokescreen of ‘news’, or go on press junkets and report uncritically.”

Media analysts agree that the blurring of editorial content and advertising copy will ultimately obliterate the integrity of journalism. “When you push it too far, you can damage the credibility of your product and lose far more in the long run than the income gained from a few adverts or features,” says Harber.

Wasserman says the long-term impact will be a “loss of trust in journalists, commercialisation of the news and the erosion of news values in favour of commercial imperatives”.

The long-term consequences will not only result in the loss of public trust and journalistic integrity but also create immense difficulty for the free media to “perform its role as a vital cog in the wheel of democracy,” says Hadland. “How can the media hold government accountable if nobody trusts it or reads it?” he asks.
As a self-regulating body, what can the media industry do to revive its reputation as the ambassadors of truth and prevent itself from being viewed as another marketing stooge?

Press Ombudsman, Joe Thloloe, said in a question and answer session with Stellenbosch University journalism students that his mandate extends only as far as editorial content is concerned. He says guidelines regarding advertising content should be governed internally by every publication and complaints regarding advertising should be directed to the Advertising Standards Authority of South Africa (ASASA).
On the other hand, marketing specialist Moerdyk explains on Bizcommunity.com that ASASA has no jurisdiction over editorial matter in the media and can only act against “misleading, offensive or unsubstantive advertising”.

Clearly, there appears to be a grey area in the ethical guidelines that does not account for the increasing trend of blurring advertorial and editorial content, or “advertising-in-drag”, as Harber dubs it. This oversight leaves the backdoor open should any profit-driven publisher want to milk the “advertising cash cow” and escape relatively unscathed.

Bearing testimony to this loophole, in the seven years since records were computerised at ASASA, Advertising in the News claims just one contravention has been reported.
According to Hadland, ASASA will only investigate if a formal complaint is lodged.

And nobody has complained.

This indicates that consumers of print media may not recognise paid-for content or fully understand the implications.

Wasserman feels strongly that not enough is being done in managing paid-for content. He says clear guidelines should be given to publications. In addition, “readers should also be empowered to read critically, to be able to distinguish between paid-for content and ordinary news”.

Hadland believes that paid-for content needs to be signalled “loudly and clearly”. He says “content masquerading as journalistically-generated content”, which is really paid for by a commercial client, needs to be declared.According to Hadland, the public doesn’t mind paid-for content and appreciates the necessity of having it, but “this doesn’t absolve the media from declaring (hidden) interests”.

Aside from misleading consumers, Moerdyk believes these practices are harmful to the profession in the long run. “The time is coming where more and more advertising will be disguised and unless the mass media wants to completely lose its promotional power, it would be well advised to start looking at ways of curtailing practices that are slowly but surely eating away at their credibility.”

Wasserman says the heavy reliance on advertising also has a more insidious negative effect – the press intentionally seek out “lucrative audiences” that will attract more attention from advertisers. The result is “the poor and the marginalised do not get heard in the media”.

The conflict between editorial interests and advertising influence is an age-old dilemma that has once again reared its ugly head as a result of prevailing market conditions.

According to Hadland, the media needs to respond with tighter self-regulation and work towards improving the quality and integrity of the press. Dario Milo, partner at Webber Wentzel Attorneys and author of Defamation and Freedom of Speech, writes in the Sunday Times that the print media wield significant power and should be accountable for their actions.

The South African National Editors Forum recently established a sub-committee to work on recommendations for the industry. Hadland says, “There is a sense, among editors especially, that this is a problem that needs to be addressed.”

Failure of the media industry to act decisively in policing itself according to more stringent guidelines may lend credibility to public calls for someone to “guard the guardian”.

Long before the battle for advertising proceeds and the skirmishes over circulation figures, quality journalism is what defined the industry. Hadland believes the cornerstones of excellent journalism such as “honesty, integrity and quality will always shine through, win readers and build titles”.

As far as the Chinese Wall is concerned, he is adamant that there should be a clear divide between editorial and advertising content. “It is imperative, even if the wall is full of holes and in need of repair”.