The Atlantic president explains Scientology advertorial ‘screw-up’

>> "We ran a “native advertising” campaign for a new advertiser..."

> We ran ads that look like genuine content...

... yet clearly marked as advertising...

>> "...that, while properly labeled as Sponsor Content, was in my opinion inconsistent with the strategy and philosophy for which this program is intended."

> ...and we thought you wouldn't notice, or care, but clearly I was wrong and we look like giant douches.

That's an unfair characterization. Another way of looking at this is that they did, indeed, realise they were wrong and looked terrible, and so realized they had made a mistake and suspended the program.

>> "In this case, we did not adequately work with the advertiser to create a content program that was in line with our brand."

> It's the advertisers fault.

What part of "we did not adequately work with the advertiser" turns this sentence into an accusation against the advertiser?

>> "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."

> It's the commenter's fault.

What part of "we had not fully thought through the issues around commenting" and "we made some mistakes" turns this sentence into an accusation against commenters?

>> "The general media climate also played a role here."

> It's the media climate's fault.

Fair comment, this does seem to be a deflection towards the "general media climate". Very unnecessary, it was The Atlantic, and The Atlantic only who solely made this mistake.

>> "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."

> When the shit hit the fan, I panicked.

Possibly. Or he could have realised that they had made a massive mistake, not implemented very well and did the responsible thing which was to pull down the campaign.

What would you have had him do? Keep the campaign running?

>> "To be clear, our decision to pull the campaign should not be interpreted as passing judgment on the advertiser as an organization."

> Don't fear, we'll still run ads for anyone...

As he says below, he believes the way that they ran the campaign was at fault here, and had nothing to do with the advertiser. The fact that the advertiser was the Church of Scientology had nothing to do with their decision. Seems like a fair comment to me.

>> "Where I believe we erred was in the execution of the campaign."

> It's probably our fault.

It's sort of funny how above you say that he's blaming: the media climate, the advertisers and the commenters, yet here you see that he is claiming responsibility.

>> "We then issued a statement to the press admitting we were at fault. When we make a mistake, we admit it."

> See, I admitted it before. I get kudos for that.

Well... yes! There are plenty of organizations I've seen who have tried to spin it that it wasn't entirely their fault. He sure does get kudos for admitting fault - that's not easy to do. Many organizations won't do it (witness Carmen Ortiz's non-apology apology).

>> "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."

> We're willing to sell out our reputation and credibility, as long as it doesn't backfire.

Oh come on! They tried something they hadn't done before to get some advertising dollars, they totally stuffed the execution and now you are saying they are total sell-outs? I think that's a bit much, really.

>> "Why did it happen? Quite simply, we did not have clearly established digital advertising guidelines and policies in place..."

> It's management's fault.

Well... yes! However, he's saying here the specific areas where they erred. I think that's constructive and reasonable. It also shows that they have identified the areas in which they need to improve so the problem doesn't occur again.

Unless they admit fault, and work out where things went wrong, then they can't exactly improve on where they made bad judgement calls and errors.

>> "...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."

> It's "innovation's" fault.

Uh, no. He's saying that this wasn't something they had done before, it was untried and untested and they made a lot of mistakes as they were, simply put, inexperienced.

>> "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."

> It's not my fault.

That is extremely unfair. I actually thought this was a remarkable ethos, given the number of companies I've seen that are willing to find a scapegoat when things go bad.

There's no point in pointing fingers at any one person at The Atlantic, because it's not constructive. While you may characterize this as insulating Scott Havens from criticism, more likely he is publicly defending the entire team from unnecessary blame.

>> "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."

> Be quiet about it.

He's saying that as an organization, they aren't going to publicly air their dirty laundry or have insiders leak criticism to attack one another. Fair enough, don't you think? Or do you think that employees should go at each other in the public arena?

>> "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."

> We're figuring out just how far we can push when lying to customers.

Or they are trying to work towards tightening their advertising policies to more clearly distinguish between sponsor content and content from The Atlantic. In other words, this debacle has caused them to review what went wrong, identify areas that aren't working or are broken, and then to fix those policies and guidelines.

Sounds like a reasonable thing to me!

>> "Very shortly, we’ll publish these new policies, and I’ll be discussing them publicly with the press."

> Hopefully this will blow over soon.

What? They are going to publicly publish their advertising policies and discuss them fully. That's called "transparency", the direct opposite of "Hopefully this will blow over soon".

>> "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 I can spin this, it'll look great on my CV.

Given your responses, you seem to be pretty good at twisting the words of others yourself.

>> "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."

> We're watching our collective arses closely now.

Or he is asking for input from employees and is willing to take on board feedback.

>> "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..."

> WE

Yes, "WE". The Atlantic's ethos appears to be to run as a unified team. I would hazard a guess, but I'd say there were many people who came up with the advertising campaign.

>> "..., but what is important is how we handle them and what we learn from these moments."

> I'm not going anywhere.

I didn't read that at all. He said that when mistakes happen, which they will, they will handle them appropriately and make adjustments as necessary.

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

> I'm so contrite, I'm even working this weekend.

This was an internal memo. Yes, he does appear to be working on the weekend and is making himself available to employees who are concerned. That's called "leadership" - you know, the sort of thing you exhibit when you have a crisis, which is what this was.

> The general media climate also played a role here.

...what?

> To be clear, our decision to pull the campaign should not be interpreted as passing judgment on the advertiser as an organization.

We don't actually think there's anything wrong with Scientology.

> Very shortly, we’ll publish these new policies, and I’ll be discussing them publicly with the press.

We're sure that everyone will forget about this in a week or two, when we'll quietly publish more platitudes about the incident tucked away in a corner somewhere.