New York Times Director of Advertising Acceptability Answers Questions.

Talk to The Times:
Director of Advertising Acceptability
Published: September 17, 2007

Steph Jespersen, The Times’s director of advertising acceptability, is answering questions from readers Sept. 17-20. Questions may be e-mailed to askthetimes@nytimes.com. To read his most recent reply, click here.
Skip to next paragraph

Steph Jespersen

Mr. Jespersen is responsible for ensuring that all advertising in The Times complies with the company’s standards of integrity and good taste. His duties include establishing acceptability policy, and both pre-publication evaluation of advertising and post-publication resolution of reader grievances and competitive advertiser challenges. Advertisements are reviewed to see if they are misleading, inaccurate or fraudulent, or fail to comply with standards of decency and dignity. Submissions are closely examined for vulgar language, salacious images or copy that imitates news.

The New York Times has been rigorously reviewing advertising for almost 70 years. The founder and publisher of the modern Times, Adolph S. Ochs, believed that advertising in its own way conveyed news and had to adhere to well-defined standards, though the advertising department has always been completely separate from the news department and the editorial and Op-Ed pages and their staffs. Advertisers have no influence over news or editorial content of The Times.

Mr. Jespersen started his career at The New York Times in 1971. He has held numerous advertising sales positions, including travel account manager. In 1992 he joined the advertising acceptability department as copy chief. He was named director of the advertising acceptability department in 2000 and reports directly to the publisher, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., to ensure that the decisions are independent from both the newsroom and the advertising department.

He is a graduate of the University of Connecticut with a B.S. degree in marketing.

MoveOn.org's Ad on General Petraeus

Q. Even though this is not strictly a question about advertising acceptability, perhaps you will answer in the hopes of clearing up the last of the MoveOn/Petraeus ad controversy.

When the controversy came to a head, the Times spokeswoman explained that with advocacy groups, any customer willing to buy space on a "standby" basis will get the same discounted price; while The Times does its best to accommodate with respect to the preferred date and placement, it cannot be guaranteed. Once the run date is known, the customer is usually informed. This is evidently what happened with the MoveOn ad.

Some bloggers point to the fact that the ad, which ran on the day General Petraeus testified, said he would be testifying "today," and thus, The Times must have agreed to run it on that day.

Could you please explain how it works when someone wants to run date-specific copy on a standby basis? Are there different versions for different days?

Thanks for your response.

— Z.Z.

A. As the acceptability director it was my job to say yes, or no to the ad, as I do every day for hundreds of advertisements. Let me explain how opinion advertising decisions are made.

In the past year, The New York Times accepted opinion ads from more than 200 groups, from Save Dartmouth to Save the Constitution. We accept ads from organizations across the political spectrum and from many groups and individuals, who simply have something to say. With opinion advertising, sometimes called advocacy advertising, the client uses our pages to make an argument or to dispute what someone else is saying … and this may include negative characterizations.

Acceptance of an ad does not in any way reflect the official position of The New York Times nor do we need to agree or endorse our advertiser's message or opinion. We only decline or alter an opinion ad when the message is clearly discriminatory, illegal, libelous, or hate speech. Of course, we expect advertisers to stay within the bounds of good taste as well.

The MoveOn.org ad was published because it complied with our standards. This ad was also accepted because it is our ongoing desire to keep our advertising columns as open as possible to the public, which we believe is a First Amendment responsibility. I would also point out that this ad was similar to other ads that criticized President Bush, former President Bill Clinton, and countless other public officials.

Within the category of political or advocacy advertising it is common practice throughout the newspaper industry to offer a standby rate in addition to open rate advertising. When a group buys a standby ad, it can request a particular date for it to be run, but receives no guarantee that it can appear that day. The lower cost of such ads reflects the flexibility that gives us. Any political or advocacy group calling up today to request a standby ad would be quoted the same rate that MoveOn.org paid.

It is also our practice to notify an advertiser, a day before, that we have room to accommodate his or her standby ad in the next day's newspaper, and at that point the advertiser can make minor changes in the text.

What's Acceptable?

Q. Because the H.I.V. virus continues to be a serious problem nationally, it's important (I believe) that condom advertising should not be restricted because of worries over taste. I think the TV networks are gradually changing their rules to allow more of these ads, at least during some hours of the night. What are the policies at The Times concerning condom ads, what is the rationale for them, and have these policies changes over time?

— Bob Kazel, Chicago

A. I can tell you that The Times accepts advertisements for condoms provided that the copy and illustrations are in acceptable taste.

This policy has changed over the years. At one time condom ads were only accepted if the ad dealt with the health benefits of using condoms.

Thanks for asking.

Q. Let's say I would like to purchase a full page ad in your newspaper and beat the #@*& out of Hillary Clinton. All proper and no foul language. Would you allow that?

— Michael Macfarlane, Arizona

A. First of all, we do not accept the word #@*& in advertisements in this newspaper. As a matter of fact, we accepted a full advertisement for a book that contained that word on the book's cover just last week. We insisted that the vulgarity be changed to asterisks or other characters.

Now, without the vulgarities, we would accept an advertisement that criticized Senator Clinton, as long as it stayed within the parameters of good taste.

Are an Ad's Claims Checked?

Q. It appears that many companies now are joining the bandwagon of global warming and carbor print responsibility because it may makes good commercial sense, if customers want it.

How does advertising plans to keep an eye on claims and responsibilities of advertisers? The whole thing could be taken for a ride if we just pay lip service to it. How do we know that advertisers are genuine in their claims? What's the code of conduct?

Should a scientific advisory group be created to supervise irresponsible advertising claims?

— Pablo

A. We expect all of our advertisers to be able to substantiate their claims, be they in an opinion ad or in a product ad. If the advertiser cannot substantiate their claims, we may ask them to modify their advertising.

In product or service advertising, if our readers find there is a difference between the advertised claims in the advertisement and how the product performs, they can write or call this department. We then ask the reader to document the complaint, and we forward it to the advertiser.

The advertiser usually contacts the reader to make a satisfactory adjustment to the product.

Political Ads

Q. A couple of weeks ago, the main page of www.nytimes.com displayed a large ad for "The Center for Union Facts," an anti-labor group inviting visitors to "help stop the big union power grab." The ad was pretty shocking to me, and made me wonder if The Times only runs advertisements whose politics it shares. Especially after Giuliani's demand for the same low rate given to MoveOn.org by The Times earlier this week, I'm hoping you can answer how The Times makes choices like this in picking their sponsors, whose messages certainly reflect on the publication as a whole. Is The New York Times anti-labor? Or is advertising just another kind of editorial?

— Diana Hamilton

A. In an effort to keep our opinion advertising columns as open as possible, we accept ads form virtually all individuals and groups.

We make no judgments on the advertisers' politics, arguments, factual assertions or conclusions. We accept opinion advertisements regardless of our editorial position on any given subject. In short, the background or the message is of no concern of ours as long as the advertiser stays within the bounds of good taste, and is not gratuitously offensive on racial, religious or ethnic grounds.

I can assure you that The Times is not anti-labor and the advertisement that you saw reflected only the views of the advertiser and not of this newspaper.

The Scent of a Magazine

Q. We are subscribers on Sundays, and really enjoy receiving The Times. However, we detest it when The Times includes perfume samples amid its magazine pages. The smell is not contained, and permeates the entire magazine. I'm not able to read the magazine, much less touch it when this happens. I get immediate headaches from perfumes. Maybe you received my letter some time ago where I sent back the offending perfume ad? Annoying, isn't it?

— Mariana Almeida, Berkeley, Calif.

A. Dear Ms. Almeida: Perfumed inserts in The New York Times Magazine, or scent strips, are a problem for many readers who either suffer from asthma or get headaches like you do. We looked into this problem many years ago and suggested that the perfumes be sealed until the strip was broken by the reader to release the scent. Ultimately, this did not work because the perfume manufacturers wanted their scent to leak out of the scent strips and permeate the entire magazine.

The only alternative we had was to either decline all the scent strips or send separate magazines to subscribers who wished to get a scent-free magazine. We chose the latter.

I am sending your name and address to our advertising department and you will be added to the list to receive a scent-free New York Times Magazine via the mail, every time a scent strip appears.

Thank you for letting us know.

When Advertising Looks Like a Magazine

Q. I've always been puzzled by Chicago Life magazine, which runs as an advertising supplement to The New York Times. Reading the letter from the editor in Chicago Life, a casual reader might mistake it for an unbiased, editorially-independent publication (despite the "advertising supplement..." disclaimer that is printed on each page). It has many of the trappings of a "real" magazine — interviews with prominent individuals, travel stories, etc. But, upon careful review, there's obvious advertorial content (some articles mention only advertisers, restaurant "reviews" that are uniformly positive and again primarily feature advertisers, etc.). In my opinion, it's offensive because it tries so hard to deceive and conceal its true purpose.

Several years ago I wrote an a letter to the New York Times ombudsman about Chicago Life, and was told that the ombudsman doesn't deal with advertising. So I'm curious where you draw the line. How many issues of Chicago Life have you read cover to cover, and did you find anything wrong with the way it presents itself?

— Jennifer King, Chicago

A. I've read Chicago Life for a number of years now, but only as an advertising professional.

As a free-standing insert to The New York Times in the Chicago area, Chicago Life is clearly marked "Advertising Supplement to The New York Times" on the cover and is marked "Advertising Supplement" on each page. According to the rules of the Audit Bureau of Circulation, the typeface should also be different from our product and it should be clearly labeled. There is also a disclaimer that says that the insert did not involve the reporting or editing staff of The New York Times.

As long as Chicago Life is clearly marked as an advertising supplement, we believe that it meets our advertising standards for clarity and honesty.

The 'Yuck' Factor

Q. There have been plenty of ads in the Times I've disagreed with, but I've only seen two series of advertisements that I've felt were inexcusable in their bad taste. One is an on-going exploitative series of fund-raising ads showing children with palates damaged by birth defects; the other was a series of people who look like they'd been badly beaten about the head and neck, their faces dark purple — in full-page full color, so you couldn't miss it — with a caption calling the puffy and bruised faces a metaphor for liver damage.

How do you determine whether to accept or reject ads whose intent is clearly to invoke a visceral, horrific "yuck!" reaction?

— David Gehrig, Urbana, Ill.

A. We have declined ads over the years that in our opinion would not be appropriate to share with your morning bagel and coffee. One of the more memorable "yuck" factor ads was a two-page color ad from a nameless (and I believe defunct) search engine. It showed the details of a hospital operating room just after an unsuccessful attempt to save a man's life. The operating room showed a dejected doctor along with the bloody detritus of equipment and supplies. A caption in the corner read "Search; Is there life after death."

The Smile Train ads showing a little girl appealing for money to help doctors perform operations in Third World countries speaks to a stark reality.

The liver damage ad for a drug marketed by Hoffman LaRoche to prevent Hepatitis C is clearly designed to shock. If it were designed to shock in order to sell computers, clothes or any other product, we would have turned it down. Since this ad could help save lives, we agreed to publish it.

Thank you for bringing up the subject.

Distracting Ads on the Web

Q. I use a Firefox plug-in called "NoScript" primarily because of the way that The New York Times Web site is programmed. I probably check the site two to three times a day (plus home delivery), but the advertising was so intrusive and distracting, that I found it hard to read.

Your ads would flash, change colors, or, in at least one case, grow to cover the editorial content. Turning off scripting also turns off the "multimedia" presentations on your site — which by and large is also a blessing. I have not (yet) turned to the more drastic plug-ins that turn off all advertising.

In any event, I wonder what your policy is for ads that flash, are distracting, that use fancy scripting to intrude on editorial content, or, as in the case of the mortgage company with the dancing Santas, are just plain ugly.

— Alan Harper, Oakland, Calif.

A. Our policy is to accept flash ads that animate for 30 seconds or less and include a default version for people who don't have a flash plug-in. We also accept advertising that expands upon user-initiation (but that you should be able retract as well). Some of the ads that you see that animate are flash, and some are just animating graphics.

We also take a limited number of "uninitiated overlay" ads: these appear over content without the user initiating anything. They can also be eliminated from view by using the close button that is always required to appear with the ad. Each person should only receive only one of these ads per visit to The New York Times Web site.

What Gives with Louis Vuitton?

Q. What's your take on the new Louis Vuitton ad campaign featuring celebs from another time? Do you think it targets new customers or appeals to the old ones? None of them seems to be an icon of fashion, so what gives?

— Sanford

A. I could only guess at why they are featuring stars and statesmen from years ago in their advertising, but to my mind it sets them apart from other upmarket competitors. The very fact that you are asking about it confirms that they have hit on a winner.

It might also be that these celebrities from years ago are more recognizable to an older demographic now, who happen to be older and richer.