Editorial Commentary by Manner of Man Magazine co-owners Nicola Linza and Cristoffer Neljesjö
We have many judgment calls to make today due to the rise of digital media and the gross shift in brand and product advertising that has followed. All of us are at risk of being pigeonholed and must be careful of potentially falling “victim” to the ethical and moral challenges faced by society today. The risk is greater to us, as we work to produce a top quality men’s magazine in this digital age of the everyman, led as he is to believe that we are all equally capable of being a writer, journalist, advisor, or fashion style critic. One of the worst we feel is what we view as the rapid decline in top quality product placement and high-end presentation at a time that the same brands responsible have dovetailed misguided low-end mass marketing which focuses largely on social efforts. Too many marketing efforts in our view are geared to the lives of not the clientele that built their brands in the first place, but instead to a dreaming youth culture and to aspirational adults who are not (and likely will never be) ready, willing and able buyers.
Defying the legacy and clientele of many brands, this new strategy does nothing in our view but feed the social addictions, fantasies and entirely unrealistic aspirations of some people, and often does so to a degree far more than their actual finances or ability to buy their products will ever allow. The idea that this sells luxury is ludicrous to us yet the extent to which we see some will go to address such questionable new marketing techniques today is highly disturbing, because the methods we see developing go against the grain of established ethical and professional advertising techniques and principles.
Is it right for one to require, without full transparency, free high-end product merchandise (including custom-made items,) or be given the same by a brand, in return for a desired review? In the same sense, is it ethical of a brand to entice an aspirational man with a very pricey suit or expensive pair of shoes that he could never otherwise afford, just for the sake of a digital plug? We do not understand the reasoning behind why any high-end brand would do such a thing because a luxury brand's real clientele (those that actually buy the items, not just dream about them) are not going to pay attention to what we call a blog shitter in the first place.
We believe that this boils down to a matter of standards. In addition, what does this say about any firm or brand that plays along without the requirement of full disclosure? Worse to us is the potential this also opens for any firm or luxury brand to directly and silently fund or front a blog site, thereby producing what appears to be a credible and legitimate review that in fact the firm or brand put together or orchestrated themselves. We do not like one bit of it. We just see pecuniary factors in such situations weighing heavily upon the ethical and moral grounds of what should be, and is often believed to be, unbiased journalistic judgment.
We follow David Ogilvy who once said "...the product must deliver the benefit you promise." Unbiased judgment and independent review is precisely what our readers look for in a published piece. Ethical and moral journalism, what does that really mean today? Does it mean what it did 25 or 125 years ago? It does to us, but we are not so sure it does to others. Reality creeps in eventually, and an overall consideration of the meaning of those words is constantly taken into account by us to ensure that our magazine remains respected and is turned to by our readers (who are in the top 1% of society) for factual and interesting content and objective opinion. We feel there is never an excuse to fall victim to the challenges faced and imposed by both mass society and the economic environment. Yes, we take the position that taking the concept of an ethical “good,” must be applied in the same manner to journalism as it is to rivers, mountains and forests.
The issue of questionable marketing is one we believe ripe and attractive to many misguided perpetrators today who in a controlled, determined effort and desperate attempt may use such methods to try to sell to an ignorant, dreaming and depressed public. It appears today that few realize as we do all too well that this manipulation can take place via a number of avenues, from funded front sites, snap shot sites to outright clothes whores who get merchandise for free and push their opinions (as well as their own crafted questions to themselves or anonymous comments to their own posts) to a mass public that is ironically stupid enough to fall for it all yet the irony of it is that these are the same people not ready, willing or able to purchase any of the items being pushed their way! This does not speak to those ready, willing and able to buy, but does address unattainable aspirational fantasies. It is to us a huge losing proposition all around.
We are not buying into this largely disturbing and evolving trend. Our judgment and our opinions cannot be bought. We currently turn down unsolicited offers of free pricey items in return for high profile reviews and placement monthly. We believe in our own editorial judgment and we solely decide what we want to highlight. We only interview people we personally select because we believe in them not because they bought us. We have built, own and control one of the finest male centric archives of interviews with significant men in their fields from around the world, because no one has ever been asked or required to compensate us financially for a piece. We have personally selected each man critically and solely based on his position and standing in his respective industry. It is their contributions to their fields, and their personal and managerial style that matters to us and in return we know is interesting to our readers. It is not, however, surprising to us today that people are often shocked to find out that we do this without outside assistance and have never requested nor received payment for a single interview. We have built our archives out of hard work, out of our own expense of time and effort.
We understand, accept and agree that unbiased educated review often requires having direct personal knowledge of a service or an item in-hand. This surely applies to published material where it is professionally accepted that a given volume must be read to properly review it, hence the term review copy, so under certain circumstance the item must be supplied to be reviewed at all. However, we feel there are ethical and professional limits that should never be crossed (let alone abused.)
The main overriding issue we have is with those offering, taking (or demanding) money for interviews, accepting free unsolicited very pricey items in return for the guarantee of a rave review, or demanding free custom-made items in return for an editorial or review without disclosure. We ask is this honestly ethical, and pure journalism, if done without full and clear disclosure to the readers. In our view, it is not. Any time luxury merchandise is received free or money changes hands for a request we feel it holds the power to change one’s opinion. We now question the basic assumptions and motivations behind all product reviews and interviews today due to these factors. Critical and careful thinking of what resources mean may allow us to consider if we are taking the longevity and future health of our integrity for granted, and if so, what does that mean to future generations. The issues are controlled by economics and personal greed dictates the end game.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
