[Media-watch] Toyota sponsorship

[David Miller]

Dear Ian,

I am writing to enquire about the commercial relationship between the
Guardian Group and Toyota, the car manufacturer.  My interest was sparked by
the media lens alert about the magazine Spark (below).  I then remembered
the 8 page pull out on Corporate Social Responsibility in the Observer on 21
March 2004 (though not also on the website).  It was sponsored by Toyota
Prius and featured a whole page Toyota ad on p 8 and an article (about a
quarter/third of a page) claiming 'lean, green Toyota aims for a car that's
totally clean' as the headline put it.  The article ends with the sentence
'the virtuous circle is just that'.

I note that the editor of Spark writes that 'All the editorial in Spark is
indeed independent of the sponsor'.  But this seems not to be true of the
Toyota piece in the Observer supplement - although this was not signalled as
an advertorial.

I have two questions about this.  First, why was the Toyota story not
signalled as advertorial?  And second, what is the nature of the specific or
general deal with Toyota for sponsorship, advertising, advertorials etc? In
the interests of openness and to give readers confidence that there is no
undue influence exerted by Toyota (or other commercial sponsors), can you
publish any agreements or correspondence on the CSR issue specifically or on
any more general agreement with Toyota?

Thanks

David Miller
Stirling Media Research Institute



 

Thought it might be grist to your Guardian/Toyota roll.  It looks as if
Toyota have struck some deal with the guardian/Observer ad/sponsoirship
dept.  maybe they will tell you what it is?

Best

David

----------
From: Medialens Media Alerts <noreply at medialens.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 13:42:37 UT
To: Friend <david.miller at stir.ac.uk>
Subject: The Guardian's Spark Editor Responds

MEDIA LENS: Correcting for the distorted vision of the corporate media


April 15, 2004

MEDIA ALERT UPDATE: THE GUARDIAN'S SPARK EDITOR RESPONDS


On April 6, we published a Media Alert, 'Rolling Deeply In The Dust'. We
discussed how, despite its professed "idealism", the Guardian's new Spark
magazine appeared to be primarily designed as a vehicle for attracting and
boosting big business advertising. Also on April 6, the editor of Spark sent
us this email in response:

"Dear David Edwards and David Cromwell,

Thanks for forwarding your article to me.

All the editorial in Spark is indeed independent of the sponsor - we write
it and they have no say in what gets written. The fact that there is an
overlap between Spark's editorial focus and the nature of the car is
inevitable. Advertisers place their adverts where they think they can reach
their audience. Just as stereo manufacturers place ads in Hi-Fi magazine,
DIY centres run commercials in doing-up-your-home TV programmes and ads for
sofas appear in Wallpaper* and interiors magazines.

Toyota wanted to sponsor Spark because they thought the sort of people who
would find it interesting would also be interested in a more ecological car.
There is no secret about this association - which is why I was so up-front
about it in the introduction to the supplement.

You are correct to see that the advertorial in Spark is a advert for the
car. This is not editorial, not independent, and clearly labelled
ADVERTISEMENT PROMOTION. There is no question that these pages attempt to
strike an editorial tone of voice. If you think our advertorial is not
clearly enough signposted as such, this is of interest to the editorial team
and I will pass on your comments to our designer.

Thanks for raising these points. Debate is very much the point of the
editorial process.

Best wishes,

Nick Taylor"

The following exchange then took place on the same day:

"Dear Nick

Thanks for such a prompt and thoughtful reply - it's very much appreciated.
Thanks also for your willingness to engage in debate on these issues.
Although I totally accept that your editorials are technically independent
of the influence of sponsors, was not Spark itself originally conceived as a
vehicle for major advertising? Surely the needs and preferences of
advertisers were central considerations in deciding the format and focus of
the magazine.

Best wishes

David Edwards"


"Your point is valid. But certainly not unique to my product.

Ever worked on a magazine launch? The first and only real questions are: who
will advertise with in product / Will it be read by people whom advertisers
want to reach?

Readers/viewers/listeners are the most important thing to any publisher or
broadcaster. But, from an economic point of view, primarily because high
numbers of  readers means high ad revenue. And media survive only through
ads. I and all writers/editors/ broadcasters would love it to be different
but there is no option - the basic cost of producing the Guardian every day
is (of course) more than the cover price. No matter how many readers bought
it, we would lose money, in fact an increasing amount of money, without ad
revenue - unless we put the cover price up to what it really costs us to
make the paper, which is somewhere north of £5 a copy.

The BBC is  the only massive exception to this, where we pay an advanced
usage fee in exchange for no advertising. Many people would argue this
improves the quality of the programming. But, as the vast amounts of comment
about the licence fee testify to, that's far from a unanimous opinion and
raises all kinds of anti-competition issues. Anyway, not my sector so my
comments would be mere speculation.

What I agree is important is keeping the readers aware of when an advertiser
is talking to them and when an impartial journalist is talking to them.
Getting this balance right is crucial, especially in products where all the
advertising has been bought by one sponsor. It remains an area we monitor
very closely, and we welcome feedback such as yours on this topic.


Best wishes,

Nick Taylor" (Email, April 6, 2004)

"Thanks again, Nick. That is pretty much my understanding of how it works -
Peter Preston has estimated that broadsheets depend on ads for something
like 75% of their revenues. There's the classic example, of course, of the
ad-starved Daily Herald that went out of business despite a large and loyal
readership. As we pointed out in today's piece we know a lot of you are
genuinely well-intentioned people who are doing your best in quite
restrictive circumstances.

We also suggested that an honest debate on the issue of high-tech corporate
solutions to environmental problems would have to include concerns of
environmentalists with regards to the often deceptive and destructive record
of 'green consumerism' and 'green capitalism'. How does that fit with the
reality that "The first and only real questions are: who will advertise with
in product / Will it be read by people whom advertisers want to reach?"?

How would advertisers react? Is it something you would consider including in
future issues of Spark?

Best wishes

David"

We are grateful for Nick Taylor's openness, but it was no great surprise
that we received no further replies. The question of how honest debate fits
with the reality that, "The first and only real questions are: who will
advertise" in a magazine, and "Will it be read by people whom advertisers
want to reach?" is something the media is not keen to discuss. Perhaps
Taylor felt he had already said a little too much about the reality of
Spark.

The problem is that advertisers don't want readers to focus on this issue at
all - adverts perform better if readers believe they are picking up a
serious, meaningful publication, not a glorified advertising brochure.

Some may agree with Taylor that there is no choice in the media - this is
just how things are. We have two responses. First, the issue of journalistic
freedom of choice is not our primary concern here - our point is that honest
debate on many issues is subject to a de facto ban throughout
business-supported media. It's hard to overstate the extraordinary and
disastrous consequences of this suppression of truth for society.

Taylor points out: "media survive only through ads. I and all
writers/editors/ broadcasters would love it to be different but there is no
option - the basic cost of producing the Guardian every day is (of course)
more than the cover price."

He salves his conscience by agreeing that it is important to keep readers
"aware of when an advertiser is talking to them and when an impartial
journalist is talking to them". But how can media output be deemed impartial
when its very existence depends on the approval, and in fact enthusiastic
support, of big business advertisers? Isolated journalists might indeed be
genuinely impartial, but a media entity's overall commentary and reporting
must turn out to be business-friendly; it must provide a basically
supportive environment for the ads that appear. If not, that ad revenue will
simply flow to more accommodating competitors. Owners and senior managers
are obviously aware of this when they recruit editors. Editors are aware of
this when they recruit journalists, and so on.

As Time's international editor pointed out: "We don't run airline ads next
to stories about airline crashes." ('Fear & Favor 2000 - How Power Shapes
The News', http://www.fair.org/ff2000.html)

In an interview with Ralph Nader, David Barsamian asked:

"Wouldn't it be irrational for [the media] to even discuss corporate power,
since their underwriting and sponsors come from very large corporations?"

Nader replied:

"Very irrational... [There are] a few instances almost every year where
there's some sort of criticism of auto dealers, and the auto dealers just
pull their ads openly from radio and TV stations." (Z Magazine, February
1995)

Our second point is that there +are+ always choices. Historian Howard Zinn
writes of university teaching:

"In a situation where one's job is within someone else's power to grant or
to withhold, still... there is the possibility of choice. The choice is
between teaching and acting according to our most deeply felt values,
whether or not it meets approval from those with power over us - or being
dishonest with ourselves, censoring ourselves, in order to be safe." (Zinn,
The Cold War & The University - Towards an Intellectual History of the
Postwar Years, Noam Chomsky et al, The New Press, 1997, p.51)

One of the deepest conceits of modern journalism is the idea that taking the
corporate media pound or dollar is no big deal. So the media isn't perfect,
but it does a reasonable job - there's nothing much wrong in working for
inevitably imperfect organisations.

But how can we be so sure it is this simple? After all, the media determine
how much society knows about what powerful interests are doing to the world.
If a million Iraqi civilians are killed by Western sanctions without general
public awareness, can we not argue that the media are a central factor in
making the atrocity possible?

Likewise, if the media is failing to challenge, and instead promoting, the
insane drive to ever greater extremes of fossil fuel consumption, can we not
argue that journalists are complicit in the mass death of species, and
indeed of the human race? Soldiers may pull the trigger, but the generals
writing out the orders, and the journalists failing to write the truth, are
vital links in the chain of cause and effect.

We think it is reasonable to be published in the mainstream - we, also, are
published there - but we think this should be conditional on exposing the
lie of the 'free press'. To be honest about everything +except+ the media is
to reinforce one of the most destructive lies of all. This is +not+ just
another issue - we are not dissident anoraks who just happen to have
developed an obsession with the media - it is the fundamental issue which
determines public access to all other issues.


SUGGESTED ACTION

The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for
others. In writing letters to journalists, we strongly urge readers to
maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.

Write to Spark magazine editor Nick Taylor:
Email: nick.taylor at guardian.co.uk

Write to the editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger:
Email: alan.rusbridger at guardian.co.uk

And the Guardian Reader's Editor, Ian Mayes:
Email: ian.mayes at guardian.co.uk

Please also send all emails to us at Media Lens:
Email: editor at medialens.org

Visit the Media Lens website: http://www.medialens.org

Please consider donating to Media Lens: http://www.medialens.org/donate.html

This media alert will shortly be archived at:
http://www.MediaLens.org/alerts/index.html







To unsubscribe click on the link below:
http://www.medialens.org/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/medialens/mailproc/register.cgi?em=
david.miller at stir.ac.uk&act=un&at=2