Atlantic President: Our error was ‘in the execution’ of the Scientology campaign

Earlier this week, the Atlantic published — then removed — sponsored content about the Church of Scientology, raising ethical questions about this emerging form of revenue. Atlantic President M. Scott Havens sent a memo to staff Friday evening explaining what happened and what will happen next:

Dear Atlantic Staff,

Clearly, things were a little rocky this week, so before we leave for the weekend, I wanted to update our team:

What exactly happened?

  • We ran a “native advertising” campaign for a new advertiser that, while properly labeled as Sponsor Content, was in my opinion inconsistent with the strategy and philosophy for which this program is intended. In this case, we did not adequately work with the advertiser to create a content program that was in line with our brand. In addition, because we had not fully thought through the issues around commenting on Sponsor Content, we made some mistakes trying to moderate the commenting thread. The general media climate also played a role here.
  • Once these issues came to light and I had the opportunity to assess the campaign, I made the decision to suspend it pending further review. To be clear, our decision to pull the campaign should not be interpreted as passing judgment on the advertiser as an organization. Where I believe we erred was in the execution of the campaign.
  • We then issued a statement to the press admitting we were at fault. When we make a mistake, we admit it. Our highest priority is The Atlantic’s reputation and credibility. That’s why so many readers trust us and why advertisers want to work with us.

Why did it happen?

  • Quite simply, we did not have clearly established digital advertising guidelines and policies in place, and when you’re innovating in a new territory without standardized guidelines (we’re not alone in the industry on this issue, by the way), mistakes can happen.
  • One important note for everyone: casting blame on any group or any individual is both unfair and simply not what we do at The Atlantic. And we most certainly should not speak to the press or use social media to attack our organization or our colleagues. We are a team that rises and falls together.

What is our plan going forward?

  • We are currently finalizing new policies and guidelines to govern advertising overall, with a specific focus on Sponsor Content.
  • Very shortly, we’ll publish these new policies, and I’ll be discussing them publicly with the press.
  • My hope is that we’ll turn this issue into a moment where, as a leader in digital advertising, we will help move the industry to a better place.
  • If you have ANY questions or potential concerns about something you’re working on, please don’t hesitate to push it up the chain. Push it up to me—and if I think I need to, I will include Justin and David, not to mention Linda, Natalie, Bruce, Aretae (our new deputy general counsel), etc.

It seems fitting to quote one of our founders, Ralph Waldo Emerson, who once said “Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail.” This isn’t the first, nor the last time that WE will make mistakes, but what is important is how we handle them and what we learn from these moments. In this particular case, we’ve learned a number of important lessons. I am confident we’re going to walk away from this with a stronger team, a smarter business, and, ultimately, in a better position to continue producing the best journalism in the industry.

I am available at any time (including this weekend) should you wish to discuss any aspects of this week in further depth.

Have a good weekend.

Scott

We have made it easy to comment on posts, however we require civility and encourage full names to that end (first initial, last name is OK). Please read our guidelines here before commenting.

  • http://twitter.com/gshevlin gshevlin

    Shorter Translation: We made a fundamental error, but my ego won’t let me admit that, so let’s talk in vague terms about “poor execution” instead of “goddamn awful decision making”

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=609776098 Jim Hopkins

    He writes: “To be clear, our decision to pull the campaign should not be interpreted as passing judgment on the advertiser as an organization.”

    In other words: please don’t give up on us, Church of Scientology.

  • nicholasT

    Scott, the fact that you would accept scientology ads in Atlantic Media, and, even worse, advertorial, has in one swoop turned me against AM, at least for as long as you are there. Respectable publishers must have some sense of values.

  • http://www.facebook.com/linda.hunt.186 Linda Hunt

    Scott…say what? You need to go back to J school and learn how to write clearly and to the point.

  • http://twitter.com/RichardHazard2 RichardHazard

    ……—–goo.gl/urQl7 (Click on Home)

  • http://twitter.com/RichardHazard2 RichardHazard

    what Maria answered I am surprised that a student able to earn $5040 in 4 weeks on the cnetwork.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=749911534 facebook-749911534

    JTFloore said it best and it needs to be shouted from rooftops:
    ”ANY attempt, desire or goal to make [paid infomercials] aka “sponsored content/native advertising” “look and feel” like normal ”editorial” ”content” is [absolutely] misleading and a blatant attempt to ”trick” — scare quotes, aka caveat quotes intended — readers, pure and simple. NO such practice is [ever] justifiable when it rises to the level of threatening the reputation and integrity of a publication, which is what has happened here.” I mean what’s next, front page paid native infomercials on the frnt page of the New York Times. Or even inside. Let them eat cake, i mean, let them PAY for all ads, as in display ad rates. Period. — Danny Unpaid Bloom

  • JTFloore

    ANY attempt, desire or goal to make “sponsored content/native advertising” “look and feel” like normal editorial content is misleading and a blatant attempt to trick readers, pure and simple. NO such practice is justifiable when it rises to the level of threatening the reputation and integrity of a publication, which is what has happened here.

  • jondaly

    sponsored content from the “church” of Scientology. that’s about all that needs to be said, really. no more memos. scott. we get it. you are desperate for revenue.