Time Inc. continues to try to put out a firestorm of controversy tied to new, “advertiser-friendly” criteria used to evaluate some of its editorial employees.
One phrase in particular seemed to spark the controversy: how “beneficial to advertiser relationship” an editor/writer’s work was.
While the phrase was only applied to a small number of editorial employees at SI.com, the controversy grew to the point where Chief Content Officer Norm Pearlstine was forced to try and stamp it out — insisting it was being blown out of proportion and not a widespread policy instituted from on high.
Pearlstine also suggested it might be part of a tactic by the Newspaper Guild to stir up controversy as it negotiates a new contract for several hundred members.
But for an editorial workforce still jittery over CEO Joe Ripp’s move to eliminate the editor-in-chief job and have all editors report in to business-side executives for the first time, it is perhaps not surprising that news of the odd advertiser-friendly criteria set off alarms inside and outside the company.
One former top editor laid the blame at Pearlstine’s feet. The 71-year-old onetime editor-in-chief returned last year to be the new COO under Ripp.
“Pearlstine is crumbling Time Inc.’s bedrock editorial integrity in a desperate attempt to attract advertisers. And it won’t work,” said the former top editor.
“Scurrying to the bottom like this damages the Time Inc. brand and drives away readers and soon advertisers, too,” the person said.
On Thursday, Pearlstine insisted it was not a new company policy and said he only learned about its implementation at Sports Illustrated after reading about it on Gawker.com on Monday.
Pearlstine, speaking of the controversial phrase, told New York mag, “If I had seen it in advance, I might have said, “what the f— is this ?”
“The SI.com evaluation focused on journalistic expertise and excellence,” he told Media Ink. “It included metrics for traffic and development of content for video and social. It also reflected an assessment of what content is of greatest interest to both readers and advertisers — something every magazine, Web site, newspaper and media business does. Continuing to do so is in no way at odds with our enduring commitment to editorial independence, and to suggest otherwise is simply untrue.”
Pearlstine also said, “It’s unfortunate that the Guild seems to be more concerned with manufacturing a controversy than dealing with the issues of today’s business climate.”
Late Thursday, the Guild struck back.
“It is not surprising that Time Inc. would try to spin its “advertiser relationship criterion as somehow not being about writers getting cozy with advertisers,” said Guild president William O’Meara.
While the union boss admitted it is possible that Pearlstine did not know about the evaluation in advance, he also said the criteria that included the controversial phrase eventually resulted in two of seven writers on SI.com getting laid off.
Time Inc. was laying off 500 people earlier this year as it prepped to be spun off from parent Time Warner.
The Guild contract covering several hundred Time Inc. writers and editors expired April 30, but both sides agreed to voluntarily extend it until after the June spin-off of Time Inc. from Time Warner.
Talks are obviously getting tense.