Does 'Esquire' Cover Ad Sell Out Everyone Else?

Why isn't Esquire getting in trouble with the powers that be for blurring the advertising/editorial boundary? It's a question a lot of magazine editors are asking this week after the Hearst-owned men's title created a novel ad unit using a peel-back flap on its cover. "Did Esquire clear this with ASME?" wonders the editor of a well-regarded regional title.

ASME is the American Society of Magazine Editors, which maintains a set of guidelines for keeping advertising and editorial separate, including a dictate that the front cover is strictly "editorial space" and should be a sponsor-free zone. ASME's only real source of clout is that it administers the National Magazine Awards, but that ought to be leverage enough for Esquire, which usually wins a couple of them each year.

Curious, I put the questions to Sid Holt, ASME's CEO: Did Esquire seek pre-approval for its ad unit? And what was his take?

The answer to the first question is no. "We're not a regulatory agency," says Holt. "If they'd asked me, I would have told them what I'm telling you -- I don't think this advertising execution violates ASME guidelines, but as one of our members said, it puts us at the top of a slippery slope."

Holt -- who is currently heading up a sweeping review of ASME's rules to make sure they reflect modern media realities -- says the cover unit is in keeping with the two "animating principles" of the guidelines as they exist: It doesn't try to fool the reader and it doesn't allow advertising to drive editorial. But, he adds, "Anything that would suggest the cover of a magazine can be sold to advertisers the way developers sell real estate -- 'will build to suit' -- is cause for concern." He says the Esquire cover "has been the subject of much discussion not only among members of the ASME board but among editors in general."

Certainly it's been on the mind of people like Maximillian Potter, executive editor of Denver-based 5280. (He's the editor I quoted above.) While noting that his own publisher/owner, Dan Brogan, is respectful of the church/state divide, Potter worries that advertiser-friendly concessions by influential titles like Esquire will have ripple effects:

From a selfish editorial perspective, it becomes extremely difficult for editors at far less marquee brands than Esquire to fight off what may be tempting ethical advertorial compromises when the likes of Esquire appear -- appear -- to be doing it and there is little to zero discourse or ramifications. Not that it's Esquire's problem, but it makes it harder for we little editor guys to stand up to such business-side ideas if presented when the big-boy editors are doing it.

Earlier: The Magazine Industry's Crisis of Conscience, Esquire's Not-So-Secret Shame