I was talking with an editor, I won’t say who or what pub, today on an editorial calendar opportunity that was spot on my client – an owner-funded company with a great product that is the coolest thing in its market – literally.

The editor agreed and we started talking additional information, what he’d need, possibility of an article, podcasts, briefings, essentially the whole nine yards of PR glory.

Somewhere in there, he says, and I am quoting here: “of course, we give priority to our advertisers, and very few if any non-advertisers ever make the book.” Caught by surprise, I had a really snappy comeback…I said – “oh, really.” As it stands, advertising is not what my client wants to do. They understand the need, and in fact do some, but prefer the third-party validation that comes from successful PR.

We got into a discussion on pay-for-play, the value of PR and the role of advertising. I did my best to persuade him that ultimately, running editorial that is only from advertisers will undermine the credibility of his book. He, in turn, tried to convince me that a company that was willing to advertise really wanted to reach his market.

In the end we agreed to disagree. But every time I run across this pay-for-play scenario, I can’t help but think…if editors often consider PR professionals as nothing but schills for their clients, what does it make them when all they accept is editorial from their advertisers?

Share on Facebook

Technorati Tags: editorial calendars, PR

Share/Save