EFEKTIVITAS SISTEM SARINGAN MULTIMEDIA D

Advertiser Pressure and the Personal Ethical
norms of newspaper Editors and Ad Directors

GERGELY nYILASY

newspaper journalists and advertising directors were surveyed to update and extend

university of Melbourne

research on advertising pressure. Results reveal that:

gnyilasy@unimelb.edu.au
LEOnARD n. REID
university of Georgia
lnreid@uga.edu

• advertiser pressure is widespread in newspapers; despite economic threats, however,
advertisers succeed with their inluence attempts relatively infrequently;
• smaller newspapers do not differ much from larger ones with regard to any forms of
advertiser pressure;
• advertising directors are more permissive in their personal ethical norms for handling

advertiser pressure than editors;
• employees of small newspapers are not much more permissive in their ethical norms
than those of large papers; and
• the amount of economic pressure a newspaper received (but not other forms of
pressure such as inluence attempts and acquiescence) is positively correlated with
the permissiveness of media workers’ personal ethical norms.
InTRODUCTIOn

the tactic is successful—represents a serious threat

Advertisers often attempt to inluence media by

to consumer interests and, as such, is a key (yet,

asking for special favors in exchange for their

often unrecognized) advertising-ethics issue.

advertising dollars. Abundant anecdotal (Atkin-

The separation between editorial and advertis-

son, 2004; Christians et al., 2009; Collins, 1992; Fine,

ing content belongs to the core of normative jour-

2004; Gorman, 2010; Gremillion and Yates, 1997;

nalistic and media ethics, and it is often compared

Hickey, 1998; Hoyt, 1990; Ives, 2010; Knecht, 1997;

to the fundamental political principle of the separa-

Rappleye, 1998; Sanders and Halliday, 2005; Sutel,

tion of “church and state” in modern democracies

2005; Underwood, 1998a, 1998b) and more limited

(Rappleye, 1998). Although the First Amendment

empirical evidence (An and Bergen, 2007; Hays

of the U.S. Constitution advocates freedom only

and Reisner, 1990; Howland, 1989; Just and Levine,

from state intervention, the notion of the “free

2000; Just, Levine, and Regan, 2001; Price, 2003;

media” often is understood in the sense of inde-

Reisner and Walter, 1994; Soley and Craig, 1992)

pendence from commercial interests (Shoemaker

suggest the existence of “advertiser pressure”—the

and Reese, 1991).

term introduced by Soley and Craig (1992).

538

In fact, some critics argue that “private entities in

Favors in exchange of advertising dollars are “on

general and advertisers in particular constitute the

top of” the scheduled media buy and can range

most consistent and the most pernicious ‘censors’

from special advertising placement to overt manip-

of media content” (Baker, 1992, p. 2099). Indeed,

ulation of editorial content including both favora-

the independent and free democratic press—which

ble stories supporting the campaign and avoidance

is not unduly inluenced by private or state inter-

of any voices critical of the advertiser or its busi-

ests—is perceived as a key political institution to

ness category. “Advertiser pressure”—especially if

most political convictions.

JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH

september 2011

DOI: 10.2501/JAR-51-3-538-552

ADvERTIsER PREssuRE AnD nEwsPAPERs

Advertiser pressure is widespread in newspapers;

millions of consumers. Perhaps surprisingly, despite the foremost importance of

despite economic threats, however, advertisers succeed

advertiser pressure, very little is known
about the phenomenon in an empirically

with their inluence attempts relatively infrequently.

rigorous manner.
The purpose of the research reported
in this article is to give a recent and com-

The second, more pragmatic, problem is

the potential for consumer deception. As

a chance for an accurate assessment of

prehensive update on the phenomenon, in

source credibility.

the context of the newspaper industry. The

Hoyt suggested in the Columbia Journalism

Advertising practitioners may not fully

Review (1990, “From the reader’s perspec-

appreciate these issues identiied by ethics

tive this conluence of advertising and edito-

scholars. There seems to be a gap between

• It takes a fresh look at both the extent

rial is confusing: Where does the sales pitch

the enthusiasm of the proponents of

to which advertiser pressure is present

end? Where does the editor take over?”

contribution of the study is threefold:

editorial/advertising intermingling and

in the newspaper business and the fre-

There is some evidence that original edi-

the vigilance of ethics researchers. What

quency by which it occurs today.

torial content is perceived as more trust-

is “economic censorship” (Baker, 1992),

• It incorporates the investigation of per-

worthy than advertisements provided by

“advertiser pressure” (Soley and Craig,

sonal ethical norms for handling adver-

third parties (Cameron, 1994). If, by using

1992) or “sponsor interference” (Just and

this perceptual difference, advertisers

Levine, 2000) for ethics academics seems

• It targets not only newspaper editors

actively manipulate editorial content—

to be value-neutral conceptualizations

but newspaper advertising directors.

and this inluence is not acknowledged—

of “product placement in print” (Atkin-

consumers are deceived in their search for

son, 1994; Fine, 2004), “entertainment/

Although advertiser pressure is present

reliable product information.

advertising convergence” (Donaton, 2004)

in all media, the authors selected the con-

tiser pressure.

In this latter sense, advertiser pressure

or “value-added media buy” (“Media

text of newspapers for the present research

falls under a larger ethical problem area:

Round Table,” 1990; Fahey, 1991; Hoyt,

because, arguably, newspapers represent

the increasing “blurring of advertising

1990) for some advertising practitioners.

the traditional elite of journalism. Thus, it

and editorial content” (Peeler and Guthrie,
2007).

The topic is all the more important

is in newspapers that the consequences of

today because media—especially tradi-

advertiser pressure are both the most sali-

product

tional print media—are undergoing radi-

ent and potentially the most severe.

placement, branded entertainment, cer-

cal transformation and are under severe

tain forms of public relations, and emerg-

economic pressure (Nyilasy, King, and

LITERATURE REvIEW: ADvERTISInG

ing digital forms of communication (viral

Reid, 2011). It has been argued that cer-

ETHICS AnD ADvERTISER PRESSURE

marketing,

marketing/seeding,

tain forms of media undergoing economic

Before a review of the targeted empirical

blogger outreach) all potentially are ethi-

hardship are more willing to compromise

literature on advertiser pressure, it makes

cally problematic because of consumers’

on ethical norms than economically pow-

sense to situate the subject in the broader

inability to identify whether the informa-

erful players within a market (Soley and

theoretical and empirical tradition of

tion is sponsored (and as such, subject to

Craig, 1992; An and Bergen, 2007). Print

advertising ethics.

appropriate attributions about intent and

media, particularly newspapers, therefore

Despite its importance, the topic of

information value) or “objective” (not

are prime candidates for increased acqui-

advertiser pressure on media, surpris-

intentionally furthering commercial inter-

escence to advertiser pressure.

ingly, does not appear very frequently on

Infomercials,

advertorials,

buzz

ests; Spence and van Heekeren, 2005).
The blurring of editorial and advertising content may deceive even the

For all these reasons, it is imperative

the agenda of advertising-ethics research.

that academic research give detailed and

It is telling that although advertiser inlu-

updated accounts of advertiser pressure.

ence on media editorial content has been

“informed, skeptical, sophisticated con-

The consequences of advertiser pressure

proposed as a high-priority research topic

sumer” (Preston, 2010), on whom much

are far-reaching; it has both ethical and

(Hyman, Tansey, and Clark, 1994), only

of modern consumer-interest regulation

managerial implications for both media

a handful of targeted studies on the sub-

is based, because he or she does not have

and advertising organizations, let alone

ject have been conducted to date. Further,

september 2011

JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH

539

ADvERTIsER PREssuRE AnD nEwsPAPERs

the topic does not appear in more gen-

Despite its importance, the topic of advertiser pressure

eral accounts of advertising practitioners’ ethical views (Chen and Liu, 1998;

on media, surprisingly, does not appear very frequently

Drumwright and Murphy, 2004; Hunt
and Chonko, 1987; Rotzoll and Christians,

on the agenda of advertising-ethics research.

1980).
One possible explanation for this lack of
salience is that it is not advertising agen-

Fine, 2004; Gorman, 2010; Gremillion and

studied. The results were mixed. Some

cies—but rather the advertisers them-

Yates, 1997; Hickey, 1998; Hoyt, 1990;

studies found a strong correlation and

selves—that exert pressure on media.

Ives, 2010; Knecht, 1997; Rappleye, 1998;

deduced the existence of successful adver-

Because practitioner surveys/interviews

Sanders and Holliday, 2005; Sutel, 2005;

tiser pressure (Reuter and Zitzewitz, 2006;

in advertising ethics traditionally have

Underwood 1998a, 1998b), little system-

Rinallo and Basuroy, 2009; Williams, 1992).

focused on agencies, the topic remains

atic empirical evidence has been pub-

Others found no relationship (Rouner,

hidden from view.

lished in academe.

Slater, Long, and Stapel, 2009; Poitras and

The study of advertiser pressure also is

The authors undertook an extensive

dificult to situate within advertising eth-

search of research publications to identity

Direct evidence is supplied by surveys

ics’ classic typologies. Although the ield

studies on advertiser pressure on media.

among media workers. Soley and Craig’s

of advertising ethics traditionally deals

The step-by-step process started with

“Advertiser Pressures on Newspapers: A

with either the “advertising message” or

searching research databases (i.e., EBSCO

Survey” in the Journal of Advertising (1992)

the “advertising business” (Drumwright

Business Source Premier and Academic

proved that the phenomenon existed at

and Murphy, 2009), advertiser pressure

Research Premier, Emerald, Factiva) for

that time. That paper also provided an

falls somewhere between those two topics.

the keywords of “advertiser pressure,”

estimate of the phenomenon’s spread in

It clearly is an organizational ethics issue;

and “advertising” and “media” combined

U.S. newspapers. The survey investigated

however, it has an impact on consum-

with

its three facets:

ers through the manipulation of editorial

“self-censorship,” “ethics,” “corrupt prac-

content.

“social

pressure,”

“censorship,”

Sutter, 2009).

tices.” Next, the titles of papers in the con-

• Inluence attempts—advertisers try-

In the macro-meso-micro typology of

tents of the main advertising journals (i.e.,

ing to include positive and exclude or

marketing ethics’ levels of analysis (Brink-

Journal of Advertising, Journal of Advertising

mann, 2002; Victor and Cullen, 1988),

Research, International Journal of Advertising

• Economic pressure—the threat to with-

advertiser pressure has relevance on all

and Journal of Current Issues and Research in

draw and actual withdrawal of advertis-

layers. It is a larger societal issue in the

Advertising) were scanned for relevance.

ing from the medium

aggregate; it is inluenced by organiza-

Finally, the literature review sections and

• Acquiescence—the extent to which

tional climate (meso-level); it is enacted

references were read in the identiied

newspapers cede to advertiser pressure

by individual players on the micro-level

papers for further literature. The authors

through:

and, in this last sense, it is a “personal eth-

focused the literature review on the most

– complying

ics” problem (Shaver, 2003). Although the

important papers, as evidenced by their

authors recognize all these relevant layers

highest citation levels or inherent research

– internalizing the pressure, and

(also encompassed by Hunt and Vitell’s

interest.

– self-censorship.

manipulate negative stories

to

overt

inluence

attempts,

comprehensive marketing ethics model

Systematic scholarly evidence comes in

(2006), the present paper focuses on per-

two forms on the topic: indirect and direct.

Findings showed that the majority of

sonal ethical norms (Kohlberg, 1984) when

Indirect evidence is based on the compari-

newspaper editors (in the 70- to 90-percent

explaining how media workers confront

son of editorial and advertising content.

range) had experienced advertiser pres-

advertiser pressure.

Studies in this group investigated whether

sure in the form of both inluence attempts

Although there are numerous anec-

there was a correlation between the fre-

and threats of advertising withdrawal.

dotal accounts of advertiser pressure

quency/quality of editorial coverage and

Acquiescing to such overt pressure, how-

affecting all media forms (Atkinson,

the frequency of advertising (for the given

ever, seemed to be much less common

2004; Christians et al., 2009; Collins, 1992;

advertiser/industry) in the media/vehicle

among editors.

540

JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH

september 2011

ADvERTIsER PREssuRE AnD nEwsPAPERs

A more recent study (An and Bergen,
2007)

surveyed

advertising

coverage than attempting to prevent

• Smaller newspapers are subject to

directors

negative stories to appear. In contrast, a

more inluence attempts and economic

at daily newspapers using a scenario

survey of television news directors found

pressure.

approach. Although the study conirmed

no difference between the frequency of

the existence of ethical dilemmas around

pressure to report positive stories versus

• Smaller newspapers are more likely to
acquiesce to pressure.

advertiser pressure, because of its use of

not to report negative ones (Price, 2003).

hypothetical scenarios it did not directly

Uniformly, 93 percent of the respondents

The study had mixed results, con-

report on the extent of the phenomenon

said they had never felt the pressure to do

cluding that there was no evidence that

and, therefore, is not directly comparable

either of these.

smaller newspapers received more pres-

to Soley and Craig’s study (1992).

The aforementioned studies assessed

sure; however, at least on one measure

Magazines also have had their share of

the extent to which advertiser pressure was

of

advertiser pressure. A survey reported in

present in the media but left unanswered

newspapers tended to score higher.

Folio, a magazine for magazine manag-

the question regarding how often the phe-

ers, reported that more than 40 percent of

nomenon happened. The only study that

the editors surveyed had been instructed

reported how many times pressure was

by an advertising director or publisher to

exerted by advertisers on the medium is a

do something that they believed signii-

1994 survey of newspaper reporters cov-

are subject to more advertiser

cantly compromised editorial (Howland,

ering agricultural news (Reisner and Wal-

pressure (in the forms of inlu-

1989). Acquiescence on the part of those

ter, 1994). Results showed that advertiser

ence attempts and economic

editors, however, was signiicantly lower;

pressure was not as frequent as anecdo-

pressure) than large newspapers.

according to the study, 60 percent of the

tal sources would have suggested: Even

editors said “no” to the inluence attempts.

though prepublication threats to withdraw

Another survey among farm-magazine

advertising were received almost every

likely to acquiesce to advertiser

writers and editors found that both inlu-

month (M = 11.5 per year), other forms

pressure than large newspapers.

ence attempts and threats to withdraw

of advertiser pressure (such as demands

acquiescence—self-censorship—small
The authors’ irst two hypotheses are as

follows:
H1:

H2:

Small-circulation

newspapers

Small newspapers are more

advertising were common (Hays and Reis-

for coverage, M = 1.7; post-publication

Journalism

ner, 1990).

withdrawals, M = 0.1) occurred much less

have advocated the maintenance of an

frequently.

impenetrable wall between editorial and

A replication of Soley and Craig’s 1992
study among television reporters and

ethics

codes

traditionally

advertising content. With the increasing

editors showed that advertiser pressure

RESEARCH QUESTIOnS AnD HYPOTHESES

acceptance of the market-oriented news-

also was widespread in that medium

Based on the literature, the authors tested

paper, however, the separation between

(Soley, 1997). The majority of respond-

one research question and six hypotheses.

editorial and advertising department no

ents reported that they had experienced

The research question addressed both the

longer seems so absolute (Hoyt, 1990;

inluence attempts and threats to with-

extent and frequency with which advertis-

Underwood, 1998a, 1998b).

draw advertising; however, much less

ers pressure newspapers.

Although journalism associations stress

actual withdrawal (44 percent) or successful pressurizing (40 percent) was

the absolute imperatives of editorial integR1:

How widespread and how fre-

rity, independence, and accountability,

reported. Two surveys conducted as part

quent is advertiser pressure on

they do not provide speciic and detailed

of the Project for Excellence in Journal-

newspapers?

directives about how to handle pressure

ism offered further support that a signii-

in everyday practice (American Society of

cant number of television news directors

In 1992, Soley and Craig tested a com-

Magazine Editors [ASME], 2010; Ameri-

encountered advertiser pressures (Just

mon assumption of anecdotal sources:

can Society of Newspaper Editors [ASNE],

and Levine, 2000; Just, Levine, and Regan,

the proposition that smaller market news-

2010; Associated Press Managing Editors

2001). These surveys examined only

papers are more susceptible to advertiser

[APME], 2010; Society of Professional Jour-

the “inluence attempts” dimension of

pressure than large newspapers. They for-

nalists [SPJ], 2010). Thus, subjective ethical

advertiser pressure, stating that it was

mulated two hypotheses:

beliefs about appropriate advertiser/news-

much more common to ask for favorable

paper interaction are more informative
september 2011

JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH

541

ADvERTIsER PREssuRE AnD nEwsPAPERs

about how advertising pressure will be

of the advertiser pressure that the editorial

handled than written (but all too vague)

people are forced to handle. In fact, there

tisers threatened to withdraw or in fact

codes (Reisner and Walter, 1994). Indeed,

are a number of reasons why there may

withdrew their advertising from the

general media-ethics research guidelines

be a positive relationship between adver-

newspaper

advocate the study of both explicit, written

tiser pressure strength and personal policy

• Newspaper

codes and personal ethical criteria (Chris-

permissiveness.

tians, Rotzoll, and Fackler, 1991).

• Economic

pressure—whether

adver-

acquiescence—whether

advertisers succeeded in pressuring

On the one hand, it might be more dif-

the newspaper to modify its editorial

There was only one study in the litera-

icult for newspaper workers to maintain

content, or if the newspaper decided to

ture that dealt with such personal ethical

traditional ethical values in an environ-

exercise self-censorship.

norms in the context of advertiser pressure

ment that strongly discourages them to

(Howland, 1989). The Folio survey among

do so. Indeed, the pressures might be so

One item from the Soley and Craig

magazine editors and advertising directors

strong that employees would handle the

(1992) study (“Has there been pressure

contained a seven-item scale about per-

conlict by loosening some personal ethical

from within your paper to write or tailor

sonal ethical norms grounded in everyday

norms. On the other hand, the causal low

news stories to please advertisers?”) was

journalistic practice. The study found that

might work the other way, too: the percep-

omitted from the current research because

advertising directors seemingly were more

tion that newspaper workers are more per-

it was applicable to editors only, and thus

permissive about how they handled adver-

missive might encourage some advertisers

it did not suit the broader approach of

tiser pressure than editors. The authors’

to exert more pressure on those newspa-

extending the study by the inclusion of

third hypothesis is that the situation is the

pers. Further, as ethical norms—both per-

advertising directors. The option of ask-

same at modern newspapers:

sonal/implicit and explicitly stated—have

ing the question of editors and advertis-

the purpose of resisting some allegedly

ing directors in different ways also was

H3:

advertising

unethical behaviors, it follows that if these

rejected, because the intention was to

directors are more permissive in

At

newspapers,

ethical norms are less strict, the pressure

keep the questionnaire uniform, allow-

their personal ethical norms for

can be more successful.

ing consistent comparisons across the two

handling advertising pressure
than editors.

Therefore, the authors’ inal two hypotheses are as follows:

groups. Additional items were included
to assess the strength of the different facets of advertiser pressure, asking for the

As small newspapers are hypothesized to

The presence of advertiser pres-

frequency with which the phenomena

be more prone to advertiser pressure and

H5:

sures—both inluence attempts

occurred during the past year.

acquiescence, it is reasonable to assume

and economic pressure—is posi-

The concept of personal ethical norms

there is also a difference in the personal

tively related to more permis-

was measured by the scale developed by

ethical norms with which they handle

sive personal ethical norms.

Howland in Folio (1989). Open-end ques-

such pressure. As small newspapers are
considered economically more vulnerable

tions allowed respondents to include a
More permissive personal ethi-

more detailed description of their reac-

(Soley and Craig, 1992), our hypothesis is

H6:

cal norms are positively related

tions to advertiser pressure and to specify

that they are also more permissive in how

to acquiescence to advertiser

the advertiser groups from which they had

they handle advertiser pressure. This sug-

pressure.

received the most attempts to inluence

gests a fourth hypothesis:

editorial content.
METHODOLOGY

H4:

The instrument was pretested by asking

The employees of small news-

Questionnaire Construction and Pretest

four journalism professors who reviewed

papers are more permissive in

Three facets of advertiser pressure were

and evaluated the questionnaire items.

their subjective guidelines for

measured by scales developed by Soley

The four had signiicant professional jour-

handling advertising pressure

and Craig (1992):

nalistic experience and familiarity with

than those of large newspapers.

survey methodologies. No serious issues
• Inluence attempts—whether advertis-

were identiied by the pretest, but the

Personal ethical norms for advertiser rela-

ers attempted to inluence the inclusion,

questionnaire was slightly modiied in

tions are not independent of the strength

exclusion, and content of stories

two ways:

542

JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH

september 2011

ADvERTIsER PREssuRE AnD nEwsPAPERs

• The timeframe for measuring the rate

1993; Cook, Heath, and Thompson, 2000).

the inter-quartile range (20 percent–46

of recurrence of advertiser pressure was

Internet surveys also can be administered

percent) of mail business sample response

expanded from a 2-month window to a

much faster than mail surveys because of

rates, as evidenced by a recent meta-anal-

year to allow greater variance.

instantaneous distribution and very high

ysis in organizational research (Cycyota

• The visual layout of the questionnaire as

response speed, two factors in achiev-

and Harrison, 2006). Ethics topics are also

posted on the Web site was simpliied,

ing higher response rates (Illieva, Baron,

known for lower response rates, with

making the completion of the question-

and Healey, 2002). Internet-based surveys

Hunt and Chonko (1987) reporting 17 per-

naire easier for respondents.

have been shown to be especially effective

cent. Non-response error was checked by

with audiences that have near-universal

comparing early and late responses on key

Sampling

Internet-access (Couper, 2001). News-

variables (Armstrong and Overton, 1977).

A random sample of U.S. newspapers

paper workers are a good it because they

No signiicant differences were found.

was drawn from the Editor and Publisher

are savvy Internet users who often check

International Yearbook. “Large” newspa-

e-mail and browse websites (Garrison,

FInDInGS

pers were deined operationally as the

2004).

The majority of respondents were from

“Top 100” daily newspapers listed by

To maximize response rate, a tailored

the editorial side (managing editors 46.9

the Yearbook; all these newspapers were

design to survey administration was uti-

percent; national and news editors, 11.1

included in the sample. Further, a simple

lized (Dillman, 2000). An endorsement

percent; regional and city editors, 16.0 per-

random sample of smaller newspapers

e-mail from a well-known veteran journal-

cent), while 25.9 percent of the respond-

(n = 100) was drawn from the rest of the

ist—who was also the head of a credible

ents were advertising directors (See Table

listed newspapers (the cutoff point for

newspaper management research center—

1). Nearly three-quarters (71.6 percent) of

the inclusion in the small category was

was sent out to every respondent in the

the responses were from large newspapers

101,598 daily circulation). A similar sepa-

sample. The letter emphasized the impor-

(top 100, above 101,598 daily circulation).

ration of large and small newspapers at

tance of participating in the study and

the 100,000 mark was used by Underwood

notiied the respondents that the research-

Advertiser Pressure: Inluence Attempts,

and Stamm in their “Balancing Business

ers will soon contact them through e-mail.

Economic Pressure, and Acquiescence

with Journalism: Newsroom Policies at

The invitation e-mail was sent out a few

The different aspects advertiser pres-

12 West Coast Newspapers” in Journalism

days after the endorsement letter and

sure—the primary focus of R1—showed

Quarterly (1992).

asked the recipients to participate in the

wide variation (See Table 2). Although

From the staff of each large newspaper,

survey. The letter contained a hyperlink to

the managing editor, the national news

the opening webpage of the survey, which

editor, the regional editor, and the adver-

had been placed on UGA’s website prior

tising director were selected. In the case of

to the mailings. The webpages included a

small papers, the managing editor and the

brief introduction, a consent form, and the

advertising director were identiied. The

survey instrument itself. Complete ano-

sampling procedures yielded 392 e-mail

nymity was promised, aiming at minimiz-

addresses for large newspapers and 173

ing social desirability bias. A follow-up

for small dailies.

e-mail was sent 3 weeks later reminding
the recipients to participate in the sur-

TABLE 1
Proile of national newspaper
Respondents
Percent

Frequency

46.9

38

national Editor/
news Editor

11.1

9

Position (n = 81)
Managing Editor

Data Collection Procedures

vey. Finally, a thank you note followed

Data were collected through a multimodal

3 weeks later, asking non-respondents

13

to visit the study website and ill out the

Regional/Metro/
city Editor

16.0

survey; respondents were invited through
e-mails to go to a Web site and ill out the

questionnaire.

Advertising Director

25.9

21

Circulation Size (n = 81)
Above 101,598
71.6

58

Below 101,598

23

questionnaire. The Internet platform was

One hundred and one questionnaires

chosen because it is an effective method

were returned, of which 81 were com-

to reach respondents who might be over-

pleted and useable. After excluding unde-

burdened by other, more traditional con-

liverable mailings, the adjusted response

tact attempts (Schaefer and Dillman,

rate was 23.4 percent. This igure is within
september 2011

28.4

JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH

543

ADvERTIsER PREssuRE AnD nEwsPAPERs

TABLE 2
Advertiser Pressure: Inluence Attempts, Economic Pressure,
and Acquiescence†
valid
percent Frequency

number
of times
last year
(mean)

number of
times last
year (standard
deviation)

M = 1.0, SD = 1.38). In contrast, whereas few
newspapers acquiesced to advertiser pressure, those that did seem to have given in
relatively frequently (M = 1.9, SD = 1.87)
compared to the number of attempts.
Personal Ethical norms for Advertiser
Relations
Personal ethical norms for newspaper-

Inluence Attempts
Attempt to inluence story selection

64.2

52

3.8

8.69

advertiser

some variation (See Table 3). Although

Attempt to inluence content

70.9

56

3.7

7.49

Attempt to kill story

37.2

29

0.7

1.67

Economic Pressure

interaction

also

showed

the majority of the respondents (64.2 percent) said that they thought that there
was nothing wrong with the advertising

Threat to withdraw advertising

80.0

64

2.2

3.01

director delivering a press release to

withdrawal of advertising

78.2

61

1.0

1.38

the editor, asking the editor to have

Has any advertiser succeeded in
inluencing news or features in your
newspaper?

23.4

18

1.9

1.87

Our newspaper seldom runs stories
which our advertisers would ind critical
or harmful.

19.8

Acquiescence

†

lunch with advertisers (37.0 percent) or
to use advertisers as sources for stories
are considered much less acceptable (38.3
percent).
A request for a story by the advertising

16

—

—

director was adequate, according to 20 percent of the respondents. Preference over
non-advertisers (8.6 percent) and advertis-

Percentages and frequencies in table relect respondents who answered “Yes” or “Agree.”

ing-director access to stories before printing (3.7 percent) were even less favored.

attempts to inluence the selection of stories (reported by 64.2 percent of respondents), to inluence the content of stories

TABLE 3
Personal Ethical norms for Advertiser Relations†

(70.9 percent), and both threatening to

valid percent

Frequency

withdraw advertising from the newspa-

It’s appropriate for an ad director …

per (80.0 percent) and actual withdrawal

… to ask an editor to have lunch with an advertiser?

37.0

30

… to deliver personally a press release from the advertiser
to the editor?

64.2

52

… to ask the editor to consider using advertisers as sources
for stories?

38.3

31

8.6

7

20.0

16

0.0

0

year, SD = 8.69; on story content: M = 3.7, SD

… to ask the editor to avoid writing anything negative about
advertisers?

= 7.49) seem to take place more frequently

… to ask to see any story that mentions an advertiser?

3.7

3.7

(78.2 percent) were widespread, many
fewer cases were reported about advertisers attempting to kill stories (37.2 percent)
or newspapers giving in to overt pressure
(23.4 percent) or practicing self-censorship
(19.8 percent).
The number of times advertisers exert
pressure on newspapers yearly also varied.
Although equally widespread, inluence
attempts (on story selection: M = 3.8 per

… to ask the editor to give advertisers preference over
non-advertisers in stories?
… to ask the editor to write a story about an advertiser?

than the use of economic pressure (threat to
withdraw: M = 2.2, SD = 3.01; withdrawal:

544

JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH

†

Percentages and frequencies in table relect respondents who answered “Yes.”

september 2011

ADvERTIsER PREssuRE AnD nEwsPAPERs

The biggest taboo seemed to be asking the

prone to acquiescing to advertiser pres-

editor to avoid negative reporting about

sure. There was some support for this

showed a difference between advertising

advertisers. No respondent considered it

hypothesis (See the bottom part of

directors and editors (See Table 5). Adver-

appropriate.

Table 4). Direct acquiescence was sig-

tising directors were more likely to think

niicantly related to circulation size for

that it is acceptable:

All

interpretable

signiicance

tests

The Effect of Circulation Size on Advertiser

the self-censorship outcome of “seldom

Pressure

running stories advertisers would ind

• to ask the editor to have lunch with the

The irst hypothesis (H1) suggested that

critical or harmful” (39.1 percent of small

advertiser (ad directors: 71.4 percent

smaller newspapers were more likely

newspapers

vs. editors: 25.0 percent; Z value = 3.53,

to be subject to advertiser pressure than

vs. 12.1 percent of large newspapers, Z

larger ones. A Z-test of proportions indi-

value = 2.449), though circulation size was

• to deliver a press release personally

cated there was limited support for the

not related to advertiser’s perceived suc-

from advertiser to editor (ad directors:

hypothesized relationship (See Table 4).

cess in inluencing news coverage. Thus,

90.5 percent vs. editors: 55.0 percent;

The only variable that might be related

there again was only partial support for

to circulation size was threats of advertis-

H2.

reported

self

censorship

df = 1, p < 0.05);

Z value = 2.654, df = 1, p < 0.05);
• to consider using advertisers as sources

ing withdrawal (73.7 percent of the large

for stories (ad directors: 81.0 percent vs.

newspaper respondents reporting threat

Predictors of Personal Ethical norms:

vs. 95.7 percent of small newspapers)

Employee Position and Circulation Size

as indicated by a Z value of 2.013. Thus,

The third hypothesis (H3) predicted that

• to ask the editor to write a story about

there was only partial support for the

advertising directors were more lenient in

an advertiser (ad directors: 42.9 percent

hypothesis.

their approach to advertisers than editors

vs. editors: 11.9 percent; Z value = 2.771,

and the authors’ data shows strong sup-

df = 1, p < 0.05).

According to the second hypothesis
(H2), smaller newspapers were more

editors: 23.3 percent; Z value = 4.415,
df = 1, p < 0.05); and

port for that prediction.
The rest of the differences could be
interpreted only qualitatively owing to the

TABLE 4
newspaper circulation size as an Indicator of Advertiser
Pressure Outcomes†

low cell counts; all but one relationship
(one item showing zero variance), however, were in the expected direction. H3 is

Large newspapers Small newspapers
(%) (n = 23)
Z value
(%) (n = 58)
Outcome variable

accepted.
The authors also hypothesized (H4) that
employees of small newspapers (both editors and advertising directors) were more

Attempt to inluence story selection

58.6 (34)

78.3 (18)

1.46

permissive in their personal ethical norms

Attempt to inluence content

71.9 (41)

68.2 (15)

0.214

prescribing normative behaviors with

Attempt to kill story

41.8 (23)

26.1 (6)

0.892

advertisers than large ones. And there was

Threat to withdraw advertising

73.7 (42)

95.7 (22)

2.013*

withdrawal of advertising

74.5 (41)

87.0 (20)

1.245

Has any advertiser succeeded in
inluencing news or features in your
newspaper?

20.4 (11)

30.4 (7)

0.822

Our newspaper seldom runs stories
which our advertisers would ind
critical or harmful.

12.1 (7)

limited support for the hypothesis (See
Table 6).
There were two items that were related
to

employee

position;

employees

of

small newspapers thought it was more
acceptable to consider using advertisers
39.1 (9)

2.449*

as sources for stories than large newspaper employees (small: 60.9 percent vs.
large: 29.3 percent; Z value = 2.382, df = 1,

* p < 0.05
†
Percentages and frequencies in table relect respondents who answered “Yes” or “Agree.” Percentages are within-group.
Within-group frequencies are in parentheses.

p < 0.05) and also to ask the editor to write
a story about an advertiser (small: 39.1

september 2011

JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH

545

ADvERTIsER PREssuRE AnD nEwsPAPERs

TABLE 5
Employee Position as an Indicator of Personal Policies for Advertiser Relations†
Editors (%) Advertising Directors
(%) (n = 21)
(n = 60)

Z value

… to ask an editor to have lunch with an advertiser?

25.0 (15)

71.4 (15)

3.53*

… to deliver personally a press release from the advertiser to the editor?

55.0 (33)

90.5 (19)

2.654*

… to ask the editor to consider using advertisers as sources for stories?

23.3 (14)

81.0 (17)

4.415*

5.0 (3)

19.0 (4)

—‡

11.9 (7)

42.9 (9)

2.771*

… to ask the editor to avoid writing anything negative about advertisers?

0.0 (0)

0.0 (0)

—‡

… to ask to see any story that mentions an advertiser?

1.7 (1)

9.5 (2)

—‡

Outcome variable
It’s appropriate for an ad director …

… to ask the editor to give advertisers preference over nonadvertisers in stories?
… to ask the editor to write a story about an advertiser?

*p < 0.05
†
Percentages and frequencies in table relect respondents who answered “Yes.” Percentages are within-group. Within-group frequencies are in parentheses. All tests have 1 degree of freedom.
‡
The Z statistic cannot be interpreted because cells have counts of less than 5.

TABLE 6
newspaper circulation size as an Indicator of Personal Policies for Advertiser Relations†
Large
newspapers (%)
(n = 58)

Small
newspapers (%)
(n = 23)

Z value

… to ask an editor to have lunch with an advertiser?

31.0 (18)

52.2 (12)

1.521

… to deliver personally a press release from the advertiser to the editor?

58.6 (34)

78.3 (18)

1.406

… to ask the editor to consider using advertisers as sources for stories?

29.3 (17)

60.9 (14)

2.382*

3.4 (2)

21.7 (5)

—‡

12.3 (7)

39.1 (9)

2.449*

… to ask the editor to avoid writing anything negative about advertisers?

0.0 (0)

0.0 (0)

—‡

… to ask to see any story that mentions an advertiser?

3.4 (2)

4.3 (1)

—‡

Outcome variable
It’s appropriate for an ad director …

… to ask the editor to give advertisers preference over nonadvertisers in stories?
… to ask the editor to write a story about an advertiser?

*p < 0.05
†
Percentages and frequencies in table relect respondents who answered “Yes.” Percentages are within-group. Within-group frequencies are in parentheses. All tests have 1 degree of freedom.
‡
The Z statistic cannot be interpreted because cells have counts of less than 5.

percent vs. large: 12.3 percent; Z value =

qualitatively. Thus, H4 had only limited

Most scales reached an acceptable level of

2.449, df = 1, p < 0.05).

support.

reliability (inluence attempts, α = 0.75;

Other aspects of the personal ethi-

To test the inal two hypotheses (H5

economic pressure, α = 0.76; personal

cal norms concept were independent

and H6), the authors created scales for

ethical norms, α = 0.62). Acquiescence to

of newspaper size, including the rela-

inluence attempts, economic pressure,

overt pressure and self-censorship had

tionships that can be interpreted only

acquiescence, and personal ethical norms.

to be kept separate because of low scale

546

JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH

september 2011

ADvERTIsER PREssuRE AnD nEwsPAPERs

reliability. Pearson correlations were cal-

Smaller newspapers do not differ greatly

culated to test the hypotheses.
The analyses yielded mixed support

from their larger counterparts with regard

for H5. There was a signiicant correlation between economic pressure and per-

to any aspects of advertiser pressure.

sonal policy permissiveness (r = 0.309, p
< 0.05), but inluence attempts were not
related to personal ethical norms. Finally,

more likely to occur than others. In accord-

Similarly,

H6 suggested that the more permissive

ance with the Soley and Craig (1992)

increasing willingness to try to merge

newspaper workers are, the more likely

study, inluence attempts on content and

advertising and editorial content through

advertisers will be successful with their

selection are more likely than attempts

advertorials, product placements, branded

inluence attempts. The hypothesis was

to kill stories. Similarly, advertisers do

entertainment, and other forms of cross-

rejected; neither success of overt attempts,

not always succeed with their inluence

over would suggest a contradictory pre-

nor the degree of self-censorship is related

attempts; in fact, more often than not, they

diction (Atkinson, 2004; Donaton, 2004;

to personal policy permissiveness.

fail. Soley and Craig’s inding that adver-

Fine, 2004; Gorman, 2010).

the

advertising

industry’s

tiser pressure is to some extent independ-

There are a number of possible reasons

SUMMARY, DISCUSSIOn, AnD

ent of circulation size also is replicated by

why the authors have found these some-

IMPLICATIOnS

the present study.

what surprising results. One possibility is

From the results, the following conclusions can be drawn:

The authors’ data showed decreased

that advertiser pressure truly decreased,

levels of advertiser pressure (with the

perhaps because newspapers have real-

exception of one variable) when compared

ized (and have also made their advertisers

• Advertiser pressure is widespread in

to the 1992 numbers. Overall, newspapers

understand) that, even if in the short run

the newspaper business; despite eco-

reported less pressure in the current study

it pays to allow some conluence of adver-

nomic threats to withdraw advertising,

than their counterparts did nearly two

tising and editorial content, the long-term

however, the extent and frequency of

decades ago, with an average negative dif-

interest of the newspaper industry is edi-

advertisers succeeding with their inlu-

ference of 15.7 percent. The largest drop

torial integrity.

ence attempts is relatively low.

was in overt attempts to kill stories (34.2

It is also possible that advertisers have

• Smaller newspapers do not differ

percent). Self-censorship was the only var-

become subtler in their inluence attempts

greatly from their larger counterparts

iable that shows a higher value compared

(this may be supported by the inding that

with regard to any aspects of advertiser

to the 1992 data (a 4.8-percent increase).

there is a large drop in overt attempts to

pressure.

All

personal

policy

permissiveness

kill stories) and instead they chose to let

• Advertising directors are more permis-

scores were lower in the present study

the newspapers censor themselves. This

sive in their personal ethical norms

than what Howland (1989) reported 21

possibility is corroborated by the fact that

for handling advertiser pressure than

years ago (an 18-percent decrease). It is

self-censorship was the only measure

editors.

important to note, however, that the Folio

that increased compared to the 1992 data.

• Employees of small newspapers are not

study was conducted in the context of

Reported self-censorship, however, still

much more permissive in their personal

magazines, which are usually considered

was much lower (19.8 percent) than other
measures of advertiser pressure.

ethical norms than those of large papers.

more prone to advertiser pressure than

• The more economic pressure a news-

newspapers (Soley, 2002). Nevertheless,

Finally, it is also possible that news

paper receives (but not other forms of

the negative difference offers further sup-

people have become more cautious when

pressure), the more likely it is that the

port for the conclusion that advertiser

discussing advertiser pressure. Moreover,

employees will have more permissive

pressure is decreasing.

as it is socially undesirable to admit to

ethical norms for handling pressures.

This decrease in advertiser pressure

what traditionally is considered as some-

might seem counterintuitive, especially

thing opposing fundamental advertising

Overall, these indings are in line with

when one considers anecdotal sources

and media ethics, they paint a rosier pic-

previous studies; advertiser pressure is

suggesting an actual increase (Ives, 2010;

ture than what reality is like. Although

widespread, but some of its forms are

Sanders and Halliday, 2005; Sutel, 2005).

this explanation is possible, the fact that

september 2011

JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH

547

ADvERTIsER PREssuRE AnD nEwsPAPERs

the authors granted complete anonymity

One aspect of the successful manage-

should have reduced that social desirabil-

ment of advertiser pressure is the devel-

ity bias, if not eradicated it altogether.

opment of better corporate-, “meso-level”

Claims about featured or “embedded”

newspapers, between “hard” news and
“lighter” feature stories.

ethical norms and matching ethical cli-

products and/or marketers are of a dif-

IMPLICATIOnS FOR PRACTICE

mate (Brinkmann, 2002; Victor and Cul-

ferent sort in each media case. “Prod-

The implications of this study for media

len, 1988). And, in fact, there seems to be

uct placement in print” (Atkinson, 1994;

and advertising are far-reaching. Wide-

a wide disagreement between editors and

Fine, 2004)—if print means news media

spread advertiser pressure—and even

advertising directors about what is sub-

allegedly reporting objective evaluations

a limited extent of acquiescence to such

jectively acceptable when interacting with

of products and services (featured)—is

pressures—has

advertisers and advertising pressure.

different from product placement in ic-

serious

ethical

conse-

quences for newspapers.

Closing the gap between the newsroom

tional/entertainment contexts (embedded

Journalism’s special claim for elevated,

and the advertising department, in this

or placed); and the expectations of objec-

professional status hinges on the idea of

sense, may be a step forward. Making

tivity might even differ in the case of hard

objective information dissemination and

the personal ethical norms explicit can

news versus features.

the altruistic ideal of serving the pub-

clarify what is acceptable. Clear and com-

The advertising industry must develop

lic’s right to know. If this ideal were to be

mon understanding of advertiser pressure

speciic guidelines—much more detailed

curtailed by economic interests beyond

guidelines within newspapers or other

than the foregoing distinctions—in coop-

acceptable ethical standards, the newspa-

media organizations can make resistance

eration with the various media forms to

per industry would have to face a loss of

against ethically questionable advertiser

avoid the specter of an entire new species

its special status.

requests easier. Although explicit poli-

of commercial manipulation.

How managers at newspapers deal with

cies, in themselves, are not suficient—as

In short, advertiser pressure is no longer

advertising pressure, however, is much

evidence shows, individuals are far too

an ethical issue for only the media but for

more than an ethical issue. Advertisers’

willing to violate company policy when

the advertising industry as well.

controversial requests also have economic

incentives are present (Beltramini, 1986)—

ramiications for the future of newspapers,

they can be a way forward.

both directly and indirectly.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIOnS

The current study also has implications

One potential future research direction

If newspapers can sell their advertising

for advertisers and advertising agencies.

could clarify hypothesized differences

space only by also selling their editorial

Although merging editorial and advertis-

between media in terms of the extent and

content to a certain extent, it evidently leads

ing content has signiicant appeal for an

frequency of advertiser pressure: the con-

to the devaluation of their primary com-

advertising industry haunted by decreas-

tention that magazines are more prone to

modity. It is an ethical concern for newspa-

ing advertising effectiveness, consumer

advertiser pressure and especially acqui-

pers to preserve not only the integrity of the

cynicism,

and

escence should be tested (Zachary, 1992).

editorial content but economic self-interest.

media fragmentation, advocates of blur-

Previous academic studies of advertiser

advertising

avoidance,

Further, the perception that a newspa-

ring editorial and advertising content

pressure on television showed that the

per is biased in favor of certain advertis-

need to realize that serious ethical issues

phenomenon was less common than it

ers—or that it has “sold out” to advertisers

are also involved in these practices.

was in print; the use of different question-

in general—very quickly can undermine

It is in the adverti