• by George Simpson , Featured Contributor, September 14, 2017

The official print guide to Advertising Week, looking very much like a small city phone book (for those too young to get this reference, everyone used to look up phone numbers in a dead-tree, softcover book that was left in your driveway once or twice a year), came shrink-wrapped with a current issue of a couple of ad trades this week.

The guide included multiple ways to see what was on the official agenda for the upcoming extravaganza in New York, interspersed with full-page ads trying to call your attention to this or that sponsored session. The back of the book had some truly lame "editorial stories" that just happened to feature quotes from folks whose companies were corporate sponsors of the extravaganza.

As a matter of fact, the entire program seems heavily tilted toward companies that paid for some level of sponsorship. It's clear that the path to the podium was for sale.

Senior executives of virtually every gold-level "partnership" (a nicer word, I guess, than sponsor) appear somewhere during the main events, some of them more than once. And while most of them were no doubt sternly told "no commercials," they are all experienced enough to work into their remarks a host of reasons why their company is the best provider of this thing or that -- from better data to better customer service to better tech to better -- gee, just fill in the blank.

So those ponying up from $1,700 (Platinum Delegate: line-cutting, reserved seats, party pass) to $220 (NewGen Delegate: bring your own lunch and eat while standing in line) will be assured a nonstop series of self-promoting bullshit from the vast majority of the speakers.

You and I are not babes in the woods here. We're totally cognizant that you can buy your way onto the podium of nearly every trade show in the world, so we are not necessarily picking on Advertising Week. But can we at least take issue with the lack of clarity around who is a shill and who is not? Every presentation I have seen promoting the extravaganza either online or in print goes to great pains to hide the fact that there is a direct link from sponsor packages to stage appearances.

One of the issues most often raised by consumers about "native advertising" is that it fails to clearly disclose that someone has paid for the content to be published. Shouldn't one of the ad industry's landmark events set an example by being more transparent about paid appearances? No one likes being deceived -- including those who would happily do it on their own sites.

On the same note, how often have you clicked on a "story" in the middle of the newsfeed of an ad trade website, only to realize that it is "sponsored content?" While we can appreciate that the trades are under terrible financial pressure (especially those that still need print advertising) and have largely become promotional tools for their conference businesses, there is clearly more they can do to stop paid content from looking almost exactly like the stories produced by their reporters. Once again, shouldn't they be setting an example?