The Benefits Of Unbiased Editorial

Not long ago, I had the opportunity to sit down with one of our advertisers who explained to me what he likes about Life Science Leader magazine. I asked this person if I could share their thoughts since he took the time to type them up in a letter. He graciously agreed. I wanted to share this with you for instructional purposes. You see, not a day goes by where I don’t receive an email or phone call asking if the magazine would be interested in interviewing an executive from their company with regard to their new product, strategy, and how their new widget will solve all of our reader’s problems. Sometimes this is  referred to as “advertorial.” Don’t get me wrong, I am not against advertising, or even advertorials for that matter. I believe if someone wants to pay for editorial coverage, that’s fine — it’s just that we don’t offer those kinds of articles in Life Science Leader.

How To Get Our Attention
We welcome ideas for best-practice editorial, with actionable information, that involves topics from early drug discovery up to commercialization. If you work for a vendor, which I define as any company that could advertise in Life Science Leader wishing to get brand messaging in front of our readers (i.e. management-level decision makers who work for biotechnology, biopharma, or pharmaceutical companies), asking us to interview your CEO about your latest product or strategy is not a fit for what we are trying to achieve. However, if you have an idea for an article about an interesting business strategy or industry trend for the pharma/bio industry and can help us connect with an executive at one of your customers who can talk about that topic (which isn’t just your products/service), well, now you have our attention. Sure, we may need to interview the executive from the vendor company to get multiple points of view, but without the reader (i.e. end user) being involved, the story lacks what I like to refer to as “juice,” or credibility. What follows is an actual testimonial letter from Bernie Clark, director, global marketing and communications for LabCorp Clinical Trials, and someone who understands the value of unbiased editorial.

Pay-To-Play Hurts Brand Reputation
I’ve really enjoyed working with the Life Science Leader (LSL) team as a preferred media partner for the last two years. After LabCorp purchased Clearstone Central Labs in the summer of 2011, it was essential to make industry executives aware of the acquisition and keep them abreast of our integration activities. After reviewing LSL’s audience profile and talking through several options, I decided to run “cover-tips” with high-impact messaging for immediate and broad market exposure.

The campaign was a success and I have many people to thank – including our account rep who took the time to understand our challenges and customize a media plan to achieve our marketing objectives. And while our needs have changed since then with the rebranding of our division this spring, the fundamentals of our relationship have not. I’m also impressed by the high standards of the publication with unbiased editorial on relevant topics for our target audience. Some magazines offer “pay-to-play” editorial opportunities that can be very tempting for marketing professionals looking at a quick boost. However, in the long run this can hurt the brand reputation of both the magazine and its advertisers.

I’ve had the opportunity to work with numerous people on the LSL publication team (including their Chief Editor, Publisher, and Sales Director) to discuss new opportunities and enhance the value we get as an advertiser, and look forward to strengthening this relationship in the years ahead.