See the Scientology Advertorial The Atlantic Now Calls a 'Screw Up'
Trendy Native Ads Ape Editorial but Risk Alienating Readers
The Atlantic has taken down a sponsored post promoting the Church of Scientology following an eruption of criticism Monday night.
"We screwed up," The Atlantic said in a statement Tuesday morning. "It shouldn't have taken a wave of constructive criticism -- but it has -- to alert us that we've made a mistake, possibly several mistakes. We now realize that as we explored new forms of digital advertising, we failed to update the policies that must govern the decisions we make along the way. It's safe to say that we are thinking a lot more about these policies after running this ad than we did beforehand. In the meantime, we have decided to withdraw the ad until we figure all of this out. We remain committed to and enthusiastic about innovation in digital advertising, but acknowledge -- sheepishly -- that that we got ahead of ourselves. We are sorry, and we're working very hard to put things right. "
The chief mistake was failing to come up with a plan for reader comments, which were enabled for the advertorial, according to one person at The Atlantic. A moderator was in place but soon became stuck in the position of either permitting plenty of negative remarks on a paid ad or censoring readers, the person said. The Atlantic will also review whether the advertorial's presentation sufficiently distinguished it from standard editorial content.
The incident demonstrates the risks around the trendy approach of "native advertising," in which marketers pay for content that looks a lot like a given site's editorial articles. Native ads are very similar to traditional advertorials -- some would say identical -- but have taken new hold recently as marketers worry about how many people even notice standard ad units on the web.
The ads try to engage readers by aping the style of the site they're on, sometimes lending an aura of editorial authority to paid, promotional content in the process. That, of course, is part of the appeal to marketers, but The Atlantic may have calculated that its post promoting Scientology was damaging its reputation.
The lengthy post, headlined "David Miscavige Leads Scientology to Milestone Year," reported that Scientology was expanding at a record pace, driven by Mr. Miscavige. "He has led a renaissance for the religion itself, while driving worldwide programs to serve communities through Church-sponsored social and humanitarian initiatives," it said.
Like previous native ads on The Atlantic's site, the "Milestone Year" post resembled an Atlantic article but for a tag above the headline reading "Sponsor Content" and text at the bottom that said "Sponsor content presented by The Church of Scientology" above a Scientology symbol.
The advertorial came as publicity surged around a new book called "Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief," which The New York Times said was "full of wild stories and accusations about both L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology's founder, and David Miscavige, his volatile successor."
Some people defended the advertorial. "Nothing outrageous at @TheAtlantic," one person wrote on Twitter. "This content is clearly labeled as an advertisement."
But the louder reaction was negative. "'Sponsor content' articles belong in airplane magazines, not a formerly distinguished venue for reporting," another observer tweeted.
Two media contacts for the Church of Scientology did not immediately respond to inquiries Tuesday morning.
The Atlantic’s President Would Like His Staff to Stop Blabbing About Scientology
In a memo to staff on Friday discussing The Atlantic's Scientology advertorial "screw up," Atlantic Media Company president Scott Havens said "mistakes can happen," and he asked staffers to keep their criticism of said mistakes inside the company, rather than discussing them publicly. This request, of course, comes a little too late, as Atlantic writers and other staff have been complaining about it, and none too quietly, since the Scientology-praising sponsored post went live on Monday. Nonetheless, Havens would like them to stop.
One important note for everyone: casting blame on any group or any individual is both unfair and simply not what we do at The Atlantic. And we most certainly should not speak to the press or use social media to attack our organization or our colleagues. We are a team that rises and falls together.
The problem that led to the questionable content in the first place was that "we did not have clearly established digital advertising guidelines and policies in place," Havens explained in his memo. They're in the process of drafting those policies now, and will publish them soon, Havens wrote. Cart, meet horse.
RELATED
Atlantic Staffers Rightly Offended by Sponsored Scientology Story [Updated]The Atlantic Staff Memo About That Scientology Advertorial
The Atlantic president M. Scott Havens wrote to his staff yesterday evening to assure them that the advertorial kinks were being worked out in the wake of the outcry–and subsequent apology by the magazine–following The Atlantic’s pro-Scientology sponsored content earlier this week.
“It seems fitting to quote one of our founders, Ralph Waldo Emerson, who once said ‘Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail,’” Mr. Havens wrote in the staff memo a tipster sent us this morning. “This isn’t the first, nor the last time that WE will make mistakes, but what is important is how we handle them and what we learn from these moments.”
Full memo below:
Dear Atlantic Staff,Clearly, things were a little rocky this week, so before we leave for the weekend, I wanted to update our team:What exactly happened?
- We ran a “native advertising” campaign for a new advertiser that, while properly labeled as Sponsor Content, was in my opinion inconsistent with the strategy and philosophy for which this program is intended. In this case, we did not adequately work with the advertiser to create a content program that was in line with our brand. In addition, because we had not fully thought through the issues around commenting on Sponsor Content, we made some mistakes trying to moderate the commenting thread. The general media climate also played a role here.
- Once these issues came to light and I had the opportunity to assess the campaign, I made the decision to suspend it pending further review. To be clear, our decision to pull the campaign should not be interpreted as passing judgment on the advertiser as an organization. Where I believe we erred was in the execution of the campaign.
- We then issued a statement to the press admitting we were at fault. When we make a mistake, we admit it. Our highest priority is The Atlantic’s reputation and credibility. That’s why so many readers trust us and why advertisers want to work with us.
Why did it happen?
- Quite simply, we did not have clearly established digital advertising guidelines and policies in place, and when you’re innovating in a new territory without standardized guidelines (we’re not alone in the industry on this issue, by the way), mistakes can happen.
- One important note for everyone: casting blame on any group or any individual is both unfair and simply not what we do at The Atlantic. And we most certainly should not speak to the press or use social media to attack our organization or our colleagues. We are a team that rises and falls together.
What is our plan going forward?
- We are currently finalizing new policies and guidelines to govern advertising overall, with a specific focus on Sponsor Content.
- Very shortly, we’ll publish these new policies, and I’ll be discussing them publicly with the press.
- My hope is that we’ll turn this issue into a moment where, as a leader in digital advertising, we will help move the industry to a better place.
- If you have ANY questions or potential concerns about something you’re working on, please don’t hesitate to push it up the chain. Push it up to me—and if I think I need to, I will include Justin and David, not to mention Linda, Natalie, Bruce, Aretae (our new deputy general counsel), etc.
It seems fitting to quote one of our founders, Ralph Waldo Emerson, who once said “Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail.” This isn’t the first, nor the last time that WE will make mistakes, but what is important is how we handle them and what we learn from these moments. In this particular case, we’ve learned a number of important lessons. I am confident we’re going to walk away from this with a stronger team, a smarter business, and, ultimately, in a better position to continue producing the best journalism in the industry.I am available at any time (including this weekend) should you wish to discuss any aspects of this week in further depth.Have a good weekend.Scott
0 comments:
Post a Comment