On Sponsored Posts And /Film’s Editorial Policies - Update: Away We Go
Update From Peter Sciretta:
Original Update from David Chen:
Here are the basic facts: Focus Features purchased an advertising campaign on our site for “Away We Go.” This campaign encompassed elements of our site that are clearly separated from editorial content as advertising. We were not paid to write an editorial about “Away We Go,” but we agreed to support the advertiser by crafting an editorial relating to the director or stars of the film, provided we could exercise complete editorial control of the piece. Some options on the table were Top 10 or a Top 5 list, but we came up with the idea of a retrospective on Sam Mendes, which they agreed to. Focus Features had no editorial control over the article, and as it’s clear in the article, I’m not exactly in love with every one of Mendes' films (in the past, and in the article, we’ve been very critical of films likeRevolutionary Road), though I do admire him. To re-iterate once more, we agreed to do the article only under the circumstances that 1) We were confident it would add value to the site, 2) we’d have complete editorial control over the article, and 3) we could disclose that it was an article that was supported by Focus Features.
We have never taken money to post news content or to review a film. We would never “adjust” our opinion in response to an advertiser (See, for a recent example, ourreview/eviscerationofThe Taking of Pelham of 123, whose ads appeared on our site, but which we were highly critical of). We regret if our actions have caused you, our readers, to doubt us, but we resolve to make sure that such misunderstandings will never occur in the future. Thank you, as always, for your understanding as we continue trying to make /Film the best that it can be. Your comments and constructive remarks are welcomed in the Comments section below.
