The web delivered a bit of a serendipitous dialectic today on the subject of how medical journals pay the bills. This morning, the New York Times published a story about the launch of OncologySTAT, Reed Elsevier's new ad-supported portal for cancer research. The publisher's plan basically goes like this:
1. Aggregate cancer research
2. Get doctors to register to use the site by providing free access
3. Tell pharmaceutical advertisers about all the doctors gathered in one place
4. Profit
NYT reports that Elsevier's medical journals are making money, but revenue is flat. The company hopes this new model will generate higher profits and provide a workable strategy in the future as everything heads online.
If that's the thesis, here's the antithesis (of sorts). This afternoon Slate published a piece by Kent Sepkowitz that criticizes medical journals for... their cozy relationship with pharmaceutical advertisers. Sepkowitz argues that if journal authors must submit to conflict of interest disclosure, so too should journals. His solution? Each journal issue should include stats about current advertisers and how much coin they've dropped for display ads, special sections and reprints.
So, is there a synthesis to be found here?
-Greg Dahlmann
3 comments:
It's a difficult balance, isn't it? One of the major sources of income for most magazines is the advertisers.
It's not necessarily a bad idea to have full disclosure, but shouldn't we also require that of "Time" and "Newsweek"?
i don't think full disclosure is the right thing to do, i kind of see it as if I had to tell people my financial income/information. however, i would be in favor of governmental regulation, perhaps a committee of unbiased researchers/physcians that oversee and can pass laws/acts that determine how much revenue a publisher can make from advertising and mandatory diversity in advertisements. It would be great to if we could actually eliminate advertising, as I think said committee would not be immune to lobbying. very tough situation, but with governmental regulation I think we could be on our way to better and more reasonable situation
In an "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" society, I do believe that it is a savvy consumer that exists--one who is well aware of these types of relationships among/between businesses.
During my years as a reporter, paid-for soundbytes, compensated "experts" and "analysts", under-the-table pay exchanged between record companies and radio stations--was nothing new or shocking.
Later, observing the subtle balance involved in the relationships between medical advertising/communications agencies I've written for, and the pharma companies with vested interest in what they do, has also been an equally eye-opening experience, and often a lession in how these companies push the envelope where disclosure is concerned.
It's an age of accountability--plain and simple. While every company, medical journals no different--have the right to earn a profit--and to seek out creative ways in doing so, at the same time, their actions have to be held accountable to the consumer-base they serve by disclosure of those sources of income.
Profitability, particularly in industries such as media and medicine, is directly tied to credibility, or has the prerception of being tied to it. My opinion of course.
In the interest of fairness, if authors are required to disclose those relationships, the journals should be required as well. I don't see the need to go into specific details unless requested, and I also don't see the need for a moratorium on the relationships. However, concealing those relationships I personally find disturbing.
It's not a black & white situation--for the journals or the authors, but I believe in consistency across the board, and requiring disclosure by one group but not the other, can create unfair precedents.
Early this year, Reed Elsevier medical journals suffered a major PR hit when it was learned that their sister company, Reed Exhibitions, was involved in organizing arms fairs throughout the US and Europe, considered by many to be an ethical conflict of interest.
In the final wash, amid significant critcism, and a healthy does of public outrage, the medical journals arm distanced itself from Reed Exhibitions, and later RE agreed to halt the practice altogether. While this situation was more of a morals ethics issue, rather than one of financial ethics, it still focused on disclosure.
Disclosure up-front is a better policy. And I agree with Wooddragon that it should be required of commercial media, too.
Have been chiding my former colleage Chris Hansen (Dateline's "To Catch a Predator" correspondent), that they too need to disclose the nature of the relationships existing between the network, police and the group Perverted Justice in their predator-sting coverage. The public is entitled to make up its own mind.
Sorry for the long post.
Post a Comment