Mr. Editor, Tear Down This Wall

You know what word I hate? Advertorial.

I’m not alone. For those of us who cut our journalistic chops in the newsroom, the division of editorial and advertising is as sacred as the constitutional separation of church and state.

My first reporting gig out of college was covering the use of technology in education. Eager and brimming with post-graduate idealism, I gnashed my teeth every time one of our salespeople asked me to sit in on a product briefing with a potential advertiser. 

What gall these marketing types had. And what exactly did they think they were doing mingling amongst the reporters? I thought they worked in the basement. Maybe they’d crawled in through the vents?

Whatever the case, they certainly shouldn’t be allowed here. A newsroom is a bastion of objectivity. Such an infestation threatened to erode our credibility with all the fastidiousness of termites set loose in a lumberyard.

It’s been more than a decade since my editorial sensibilities suffered that first reality check. And though I’d love to think of the ad-edit boundary as endless, impassable and charged with 10,000 volts, experience has taught me the real shock awaits the editor unwilling or unable to adjust his grip in the face of change.

Interactive advertisements in online publications and on the covers of some print magazines have fueled this debate. Take a look at recent print and digital editions of ESPN or WIRED. With the ubiquity of the iPad, smartphones and other portable digital devices, publishers are confronted with a seemingly limitless menu of advertising options, from clickable videos to music to interactive games.

A recent study from Affinity’s VISTA Digital Service, which measures the effectiveness of ads delivered through iPad apps and other mobile platforms, indicated that magazine readers engage most with digital ads that feature sponsored videos, photo galleries and 3D product views.

Among readers that tap the screen to watch a sponsored video embedded in an ad, the report said, 88 percent enjoy the experience. Eighty-nine percent categorize the advertiser as “innovative” for taking such an approach.

The landscape has changed so dramatically, in fact, that AOL has formed a new brain trust dedicated to reevaluating the traditional web page and fostering more integration between advertising and editorial.

As a content creator who must be mindful of a publication’s bottom line, it makes sense, particularly in this economy.

But what’s the use of a wall, if it can’t keep anyone out? Maybe it’s time we stopped stacking bricks and started doing what’s necessary to help our publications and their readers navigate a world in which advertising and editorial coexist?

Our publications shouldn’t be denied the benefits of new and innovative advertising tools—tools that could improve their bottom lines and, by extension, their editorial product—simply because we’re afraid such methods might compromise the value of their content.

Call me crazy, but with a little work, I think we can help uphold, perhaps even strengthen, the integrity of our editorial, while continuing to improve the reader experience through better more engaging advertising. What do you think?

P.S. None of this changes my opinion of the word advertorial, by the way. It still gives me the creeps