Arkansas Blog

The "advertorial" trend that Brummett sees is not limited to "niche publications" like Soiree and the Little Rock daily's Arkansas Life. I stopped subscribing to Newsweek (published by the Washington Post Company) because every third or fourth issue featured a cover-story on some medical "break-through" or scare or development -- accompanied by page after page of ads pushing health insurance, prescription drugs, home-health equipment, etc. The ads seemed to be distinguished from the reporting, but how could one trust the reporting of a publication so clearly beholden to an industry or two or three?

It's part of corporate media. Money and advertisers decide what the story is today....not journalists (remember those?).

The "advertorial" is nothing new, even if the word itself might be.

Even the late Arkansas Gazette sold advertorial way back in the day. It was called the Progress Edition and towns and companies across Arkansas received glowing articles if they bought ads.

The Sentinel-Record in Hot Springs is at least honest enough to run a statement in its Monday business section saying that people and companies that buy ads get articles; those that don't advertise may or may not get the articles.

Any "special section," such as those that Arkansas Business runs weekly, sell ads to accompany the "special emphasis" for the week -- banks, top 100 private companies, biggest ad agencies, etc., etc.

Wow. Max and you and Brummett are a regular Bernstien and Woodward for uncovering this high crime and for properly whipping the city's and Ms. Hurst's ass in public. You go boys.

Please tell me Hankins isn't trying to say what Soiree did is justfied by the inclusion of clearly labeled adverterorial that is being sold by the new Dem Gazette monthly. That makes me cringe for many reasons. It's a red herring argument and it so misses the point as to how Soiree mislead i's readers--eggregiously so when judged against the--VERY REAL STANDARDS THAT EXIST-- and broke so many journalistic standards that I simply can't believe he can even offer that lame excuse up.

This guy eeds to go take a journalsim 101 class at UALR if that is the extent of his understanding of this. And all of us would do well to wrap our hands around the larger issues--serious issues-- that were put in play here when Soiree tried to pass that off. These are serious issues even if Soiree is not a "real" magazine. It has to attend to the same standards with so-called editorial. Otherweise, among other serious reasons that get to the heart of journalistic integrity, we're setting ourselves up to be taken for fools. And we'd deserve it. Every bit of it.

I'm all for letting it go--yes it is just Soiree afterall--but at least Man Up to it. Serious standards, norms, and ethics were tromped on with the Soiree piece. On many levels. It's not just a simple, "oooops, my bad, sorry kind of thing." It demands a more thorough coming clean with a more nuanced mea culpa that acknoweldges the seriousness of the larger issues and ethical lapses that undermine the integrity of the publication--yes even of Soiree-- going forward.

Is Hankins even a journalist? And what really is a journalist these days? We need some standards for journalists similar to those for lawyers and doctors. The job is too important to allow pretty people on tv or anyone else call themselves a journalist.

When Tom Brokaw makes an appearance on MSNBC, you realize, now this guy is a journalist and the rest are NOT.

As I posted somehwere else on this sight:

I was reading somewhere (the DOG, the Times?) that the cityof little rock is buying ad space to "congratulate" various public officials/public servants on completeing leadership greater little rock. Why? Better question? Who paid the $1,500 to $2,000 for them to take time off from the jobs we pay them to do to participate? Did the cost to enroll come out of their pockets? Who was doing their jobs while they participated in this time intensive extracurricular activity? Isn't leadership in greater little rock what they were hired to demonstrate to begin with? Why do we need to send them to classes on it?

I'd much, much rather see the city use all these funds for buying tables to various events and needless advertisements to work on roads, education, the "park" on Chenal Parkway that the city built for Kohl's and which no one, and I mean, NO ONE uses (and my wife drives by it at least 6 times a day). I haven't once seen anyone in that "park." What a waste.

Furthermore, cities like Conway and North Little Rock are just flat kicking Little Rock's butt when it comes to economic development. I think the biggest announcement I've seen lately for Little Rock was a park behind the Peabody which is nice, but not quite HP is building a new facility/ALLTEL Arena/Dickey Stephens Park big enough for me.

You GO, IABL1969.

I have an added perspective to the "Soiree" shakedown. When you've got a magazine that pretends to be about society and people of means (oh, but it's also oh so very democratic and PC, because, well, ANYONE can be in Soiree, right?) while also sanctimoniously painting itself as the patron saint of the non-profit benefit world, all the time behaving like pigs on the business side...

Then you've got your new South, where women are ordering the corporate Kool-Aid and passing up the iced tea with mint.

The very essence of decency is gone when you pretend to be "helping" society with this sort of poppycock. Soiree is as phony as anything can get, anywhere.

As for those entrusted with operating the city of Little Rock, well, it is never going to work until you get real and realize what the actual IDENTITY of Little Rock wants to be, what makes Little Rock unique all to itself, not what made Portland great, or what makes Dallas seem glittery, or what can come to you from glomming onto a former President. Little Rock power mongers are becoming as phony and hypocritical as Soiree; both patting each other on the back while promoting only those at the top of their lists. There's no substance and precious little style. And dare I say it? Extreme bad taste and ignorance abounds.

"I think the biggest (economic development) announcement I've seen lately for Little Rock was a park behind the Peabody. . . "

Guess you missed a couple of announcements, ErnestD: LM Glasfiber, headquartered in Denmark and the world's leading producer of wind-turbine blades, is building a $150 million production plant in Little Rock that will bring 1,000 new high-quality jobs to town. And, Dassault Falcon Jet has announced a $20 million expansion of its Little Rock Completion Center where more than 200 new high-paying jobs ($25-$60 an hour for some them) will be added to the existing workforce of 2,000.

I dunno about that economic development butt-kicking you say other towns are giving LR. How about taking a look at LR's weekday inbound morning traffic from Morrilton, Conway, Searcy, Cabot, Jacksonville, Lonoke, Benton, Bryant, and Pine Bluff (among many other central Arkansas communities). Such a gander would leave no question as to where the jobs are (and where they are not).

another angle not mentioned thus far is arkansas business. so this is a "serious" publication that would've jumped all over this story had it been one of the other local magazines not produced by abpg. we've seen it before, even recently with the glasgow story, that outtakes and even the weekly's editor opines on such journalistic lapses of judgment.

i look forward to seeing this week's edition of arkbiz and if they separated themselves from the under the whorish umbrella of the rest of the company or if they reported the news. i'm guessing not. they'll promote themselves whenever possible, but this is likely to be ignored, hoping it'll just go away.

hankins makes it seem as if it was a "mistake," like they just forgot to label the piece as advertorial, ignoring the fact that the editor even gushed and tried to sell it to readers as an editorial piece in the magazine's pages. that's not a "mistake." that's extreme lapse of judgment and a reflection of the kinds of decisions that were made.

there's a problem with a "serious" publication being run under the same roof as ad-whoring niche pubs. when the lines do blur, everyone loses credibility.

=================================================================
If it happened once, it might be a mistake, but when you do it repeatedly week after week, that's NOT a mistake.
=================================================================

Is there no limit to the appetite of Little Rock's small clique of rich folks for photos of themselves holding plastic glasses full of cheap white wine and grinning at the camera?

There must be, at most, 150 people who show up week after week in various combinations in the Democrat-Gazette's society section, Soiree and Inviting Arkansas. These same 150 people go to parties, galas, roast and toasts, dinners honoring each other, fundraisers, and other gatherings in each other's back yards, on their decks, at the Peabody, at the three country clubs, etc.

The market for the photos of this same bunch apparently is limitless, since the Democrat-Gazette is starting up still another publication aimed at this crowd.

I guess when hubby's company, wifey's corporation or nonprofit or the City of Little Rock is ponying up the cash for said activities it's a win-win for everybody. The publications get money for running the stuff and the 150 select swells enjoy looking at themselves week after week.

Point well made and taken durangokid. Can someone answer my other questions? Am I the only one asking them?

I was reading somewhere (the DOG, the Times?) that the cityof little rock is buying ad space to "congratulate" various public officials/public servants on completeing leadership greater little rock. Why? Better question? Who paid the $1,500 to $2,000 for them to take time off from the jobs we pay them to do to participate? Did the cost to enroll come out of their pockets? Who was doing their jobs while they participated in this time intensive extracurricular activity? Isn't leadership in greater little rock what they were hired to demonstrate to begin with? Why do we need to send them to classes on it?

I'd much, much rather see the city use all these funds for buying tables to various events and needless advertisements to work on roads, education, the "park" on Chenal Parkway that the city built for Kohl's and which no one, and I mean, NO ONE uses (and my wife drives by it at least 6 times a day). I haven't once seen anyone in that "park." What a waste.

ErnestD, you probably saw it on the front page of yesterday's Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Here's an excerpt from the article:

"The city has regularly bought ads to honor its officials or employees if they've been recognized for a certain reason, said Scott Carter, the city's spokesman. The city expects another $1,500 bill from the Arkansas Business Publishing Group soon for an Arkansas Business ad this week congratulating Assistant City Manager Bryan Day, Assistant Police Chief Eric Higgins and Darren Holcomb of the Information Technology Department for going through the Little Rock Regional Chamber of Commerce's nine-month leadership program.
But Carter is not aware of the city paying for any other article or photograph like Hurst's feature in Soiree."

I concur with all who believe this kind of thing is an outrage.

Well, actually, that excerpt didn't tell you a doggone thing you didn't already know, ErnestD. I read your post too quickly and thought you were wondering WHERE you'd seen the info before. I agree with you that the city should not be paying for things like participation in Leadership Little Rock. As you've pointed out, the money could be much more wisely spent to address real needs. As to why this is going on? I think it's simply because the city fathers have never had their hands called on such practices. If I was a bettin' man (and I is) I'd bet that there's gonna be a real clamp-down on this kind of nonsense in the very near future?

That last sentence would make more sense had it ended with the intended period rather than the uninteded question mark. Think I might have started on the margaritas a bit too early.

I inadvertently appeared in the first issue of Soiree (or Inviting Arkansas: can't remember), as I discovered when I arrived for a hairdresser's appointment and they were all thrilled (and impressed) that I was in it.

I wasn't impressed: I was mortified to appear in its pages (even though I wore a Valentino suit with a few David Yurman pieces, a whiff of my signature fragrance, Dolce & Gabbana's "Light Blue", and looked impeccably fabulous, as I always do).

Since then, I politely refuse to appear in any pictures at non-profit fundraisers I may attend and have successfully avoided ever again appearing in these rags.

These magazines are known in the trade as vanity publications, and that's ALL they are. They're not journalism. They are glossy advertising vehicles for their target audiences: Little Rock's wannabe upscale up-and-comers and already-theres.

Nothing wrong with that.

John Brummett (another and admired acquaintance) is wrong when he states this is about "blurring news and advertising in the news media."

Soiree and Inviting Arkansas aren't "news media." They're well-done monthly advertisement glossies by and for Little Rock's self-impressed, self-satisfied, vain. Every city has rags like these. People "pay" to get into them. That's not news.

Fortunately, Brummett goes on to acknowledge the truth about these publications.

And thank the AT and Brummett (and the tipster) for exposing this egotistical sham for what it is. Am I bothered that the women PAID to be "selected" and "honored" with profiles? No. I already knew that about Soiree and Inviting Arkansas. Do I care that taxpayers paid for Stacy Hurst's inclusion? Yes.

Whatever their skills and achievements, these women have been publicly exposed as self-promoting, vain and under-the-table. Not an attractive combination. No wonder so many "no comments." (Yes, just like so many men have been similarly exposed.)

It's great fun, whilst waiting in the doctor's office, waiting at the hair salon, or waiting on the throne for your bowels to move . . . to peruse last month's social events and see how everybody looked (God, Lynda Dixon looks great after losing all that weight!) and scan the ads for largely useless upscale products that function solely to express wealth, status and vanity and marvel at how many gay husbands there apparently are out there (this guessing game alone beats hell out of sudoku).

Sadly, my association of these publications with my personal bathroom reading means that every time I pick up an issue of Soiree or Inviting Arkansas, I immediately have to take a long leisurely shit.

Time for a whiff of my signature fragrance.

The whole Soiree "I Paid to be Honored" mishegass leads to another train of thought: the symbiotic relationship between publications like Soiree and Inviting Arkansas, and the non-profits they ostensibly serve.

Unless non-profits purchase ads for upcoming events in these publications, these rags don't "promote" and "publicize" events: they record them after the fact. They primarily function as "look at me" vanity glossies with lucrative upscale ads.

Sure, they feature one (or maybe two) upcoming fund-raiser profiles per issue. "Why," would you guess? $.

Arkansas, on a per-capita basis, is the most philanthropic state in the Union, according to a rep from the Governor's office. I believe it. Every weekend is packed with charitable fund-raisers. Every month there are over 100, statewide!

Based on direct experience within non-profits, I've learned to pick and choose carefully. Where do my tax-writeoff donations actually go?

Well, let's see.

I'm enjoying Al Jarreau at the Peabody, with a delicious full buffet dinner and dance - plus the inevitable silent auction of stuff I already have or don't need-to benefit (no non-profit organizations will be mentioned).

The $250 per person ticket already yields $125,000 with a crowd of 500.

Minus the $25,000 fee for Al Jarreau and his band and accommodations.

Minus the Peabody Grand Ballroom rental fee plus per-plate costs. Say, $19,000.

Minus the cut the NATIONAL organization takes off the top. (I once worked for a non-profit whose national office took an immediate pre-tax 25% off every dollar we brought in. Donations, bequests and all.)

Minus allocations to the salaries of the full-time non-profit staff and various outside vendors (florists, etc.).

All totaled? The supposed benefactors of this non-profit (the patients) received NOTHING from this fund-raising event.

But in Soiree and Inviting Arkansas it appeared as a hugely successful event that raised $125,000. With lots of pix of "generous" benefactors holding plastic cups.

Self-congratulatory? Vain? Oblivious to facts? Yes.

Remember the United Way scandal in Washington, D.C. a few years ago? That's the way the non-profit game is largely played, Razorbacks.

Write off nifty upscale social events. Party hearty whilst lowering taxable income and appearing philanthropic! Works for me!

Thoroughly investigate the organizations you plan to contribute to. Know to whom you're giving your gifts.

Otherwise, your dollars go toward a fun and fancy party, a national Executive Director (and staff), a local Executive Director (and staff), and next-to-nothing to the constituency these organizations say they serve.

Do your homework. There are some good ones out there.

The ones, generally, that exist to appear in Soiree and Inviting Arkansas, are not.

Check it out, Razorbacks.

Give wisely. Give generously.

Know where your bucks are going.

ARK. BLOG: Great post, Norma, if anyone is still looking. I sit on the board of a small charitable trust. As a matter of policy, we don't support fund-raising dinners. We give money to direct services, period. We don't subsidize dinners.

I second the complimenting of Norma by Max.....just for the record.

Soiree is just one of many ABPG publications with slimy advertorial/editorial/sales procedures.
ABPG collects and sells lists of businesses, contact info and descriptions which they collect from their "magazine" advertisers. They do not do their own "research." They sell ad space to these same advertisers and call these lists "editorial content." They encourage advertisers to provide this information while they are selling the ad, as if it is an added bonus or incentive. They will also change said "editorial" content (lists of info) provided by an advertiser so that it is in DIRECT conflict with the advertiser's best interest. They do not inform their advertisers of this fact. They cannot keep a sales rep for more than 3-6 months, and the ones they have know nothing about the non-ethics of their "editorial" policies. They should do their own research instead of getting information from advertisers as an ad selling tool, and then telling ad buyers that the information is "editorial." Mailing lists and directories are not editorial, and most of their niche mags are just directories with ads.
ABPG niche mags are a racket, and often Arkansas Business reads more like a gossip rag. They have no shame or ethics.

I am editor of Arkansas Business. I would welcome a personal call from "Mr Soul" or anyone else who has complaints, concerns or questions about Arkansas Business, our lists, research methods, ethics or any other part of the editorial content. You don't even have to tell me who you are.

Mr Soul seems to be making the case that our lists are not editorial content at the same time he is complaining that advertisers don't get the final say over exactly what the lists say, so I'm not sure how to respond except to say this: Our lists absolutely are researched by our news staff and they absolutely are editorial content over which advertisers have no control. The method of research depends on the list. For example, we use public information from the FDIC for lists of banks, but for private companies we have to survey the companies themselves and rely on the information they provide. Many a disappointed advertiser can testify that rankings are not made available before publication, and no company or individual has ever been charged to be included in our lists.

Making uninformed accusations is easy when you don't have to take personal responsibility, but my name has been on more than 450 issues of Arkansas Business. Anyone who wants to talk to me can reach me at 501-372-1443, ext. 261, or at gmoritz@abpg.com.

"Making uninformed accusations is easy when you don't have to take personal responsibility . . "

True, Gwen. There's a lot of irresponsible comment on this blog (and every blog), regardless of the topic. I'm as guilty as anybody. Gonna try to clean up my act. You do a great job at AB. I read a number of out-of-state publications similar to it, and none is better than AB. In fact, very few are half as good. Cheers!