On Blurring the Lines

Posted 12 November, 2007 in Marketing |

Two recent initiatives have — perhaps inadvertently — thrown light on the ways in which publishers’ marketing schemes are encroaching into territory that was once subject to a rigorous separation of editorial content and advertising.

The first is the Charles Adler Book Club, featured on CKNW News Talk 980, a Vancouver AM radio station. The book club is sponsored by Penguin books, whose logo is featured prominently on the page devoted to the club on the station’s website. In his introductory letter, Adler writes of the book club, “With the sponsorship and support of one of the planet’s top publishers, Penguin Books, we will have the opportunity to review and discuss both on the radio and online some of the most interesting and inspirational books being published right now.”

The problem with this, of course, is that it’s patently misleading: the whole enterprise is advertising disguised as content. Sure, they’ll be discussing “some of the most interesting and inspirational books being published right now,” provided those books are published by Penguin. The website contains an interview between Adler and Yvonne Hunter, director of marketing and publicity for Penguin Canada, in which Adler talks about books as balms against the travails of daily life: when we find ourselves “in our cups,” Adler suggests, what we really need is companionship, and he “just can’t imagine a healthier place to look for companionship than the pages of a Penguin book.”

It’s the adjective that bothers me. Not “the pages of a book,” but “the pages of a Penguin book.” As much as Adler might want to claim that his book club is about promoting literature and literacy, and all the benefits that accrue therefrom, the adjective gives him away. The book club’s sponsorship ensures that the only books that will get consideration on air will be those published by Penguin. This is not editorial content: it’s advertising. The bottom line, for Penguin, is exposure for their titles and, with luck, increased sales.

Neither Oprah’s book club in the States nor Richard and Judy’s book club in the U.K. is tied to any one specific publisher, for precisely this reason. The line between editorial and advertising has been steadily blurring over the last decade and a half or so; by tying his book club to the product of a single publisher, Adler, with Penguin’s help, has completely obliterated it.

The second initiative that caught my eye recently involved the House of Anansi Press and Facebook. In a video posted on YouTube, Anansi’s Julie Wilson explains that Facebook unilaterally deactivated the personal account that Wilson set up for Anansi, deeming it in violation of the site’s Code of Conduct.

Facebook’s Terms of Use state, in part: “You understand that except for advertising programs offered by us on the Site (e.g., Facebook Flyers, Facebook Marketplace), the Service and the Site are available for your personal, non-commercial use only,” and the User Code of Conduct further stipulates that “WHEN YOU USE FACEBOOK, YOU ARE AGREEING TO ABIDE BY THE USER CODE OF CONDUCT AND THE OTHER RULES SET FORTH IN OUR TERMS OF USE. FAILURE TO ADHERE TO THIS CODE OF CONDUCT AND THE TERMS OF USE MAY RESULT, AMONG OTHER THINGS, IN TERMINATION OF YOUR ACCOUNT AND THE DELETION OF CONTENT THAT YOU HAVE POSTED ON FACEBOOK, WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE, AS DETERMINED BY FACEBOOK IN ITS SOLE DISCRETION.” (Capitalization is Facebook’s.)

In her message, Wilson states that she created Anansi’s personal profile, as distinct from the various groups the house maintains on the Facebook site, because “we all know that the personal profile’s where it’s at … There’s so many different ways that you can engage a person through your personal profile that you simply can’t with a group.” She then compares having Anansi’s personal account deactivated without warning to “being dumped on a sticky note.”

That Anansi’s personal profile was in violation of Facebook’s Terms of Use and their User Code of Conduct seems clear; it is also clear that Facebook acted within its rights by deactivating the account without notice.

Wilson goes on to address Facebook directly, saying, “As a community, I thought that we were kind of working in a partnership,” and stating for the record that “I, Julie Wilson of House of Anansi Press, think that a community is led not by one, but propelled forward by many, and if I thought it was okay to create a profile for an organization it’s only because while our authors and our books speak for the press, who speaks for you, the people who buy and read our books?”

All of which sounds very egalitarian and democratic, but it also elides the salient fact that, despite Wilson’s talk of community, the ultimate purpose of the Anansi personal profile on Facebook was to sell books. To suggest otherwise is simply being disingenuous. Facebook recognized this and took the entirely appropriate action of deactivating the house’s personal account (while leaving their groups untouched).

The Anansi/Facebook farrago is another instance of marketers blurring the line between advertising and content. It may look different in the case of Facebook, because the profile was used to actively engage its participants, but the promotional aspect was nevertheless central and motivational, no matter how deeply it was buried.

Publishers and booksellers face an increasingly difficult and inimical marketplace, and there is obviously the need to find new and innovative ways to market their products in an ever noisier and busier environment. However, by crossing the dividing line between advertising and content, or by suggesting that an advertising initiative is “propelled forward” by more altruistic motives, publishers do a disservice to the very cause that they are trying to advance.

1 comment to “On Blurring the Lines”

Alex, November 12th, 2007 at 6:33 pm:

• I don’t know how rigorous the separation has ever been. Within the industry it’s understood that the “content” of most media (including radio and the internet) is advertising. And the rest is just advertising for the advertising. Sounds like Facebook were pissed off because they want a monopoly on advertising on their network, which I guess is fair. I think it’s kind of weird though since so much of what you see on Facebook is a shadow form of advertising anyway. Sounds like the Penguin radio book club is a kind of infomercial.

  We live in a culture of advertising. Think about it: We spend billions on anti-spam and anti-pop-up software and telephone scanners and all the rest of it to try and defend ourselves. It’s an industry in itself. And still we can’t stop it. Nor can I stop the flyers filling my mailbox, or the advertising sections that get thrown out at the end of my drive. Movies are filled with product placement. You start zapping commercials when you’re watching sports on TV and so they start painting ads right on the field, and sticking them all over the uniforms. There’s no sanctuary. Whenever I think about it I get pissed off, so I try not to.

Your comment:

Name (required)

Mail (requried)

Website

Security code (Required)*
To prove that you're not a bot, enter this code