A song to read by: “Runner,” by Alex G

What I’m reading: “The Rachel Papers,” by Martin Amis

The week that was

This week, New York played host to an annual event called Advertising Week, which, I kid you not, has absolutely nothing to do with Adweek—despite the similar names, locations and, of course, subject matter.

In fact, Adweek staff do not typically attend Advertising Week events, a policy made all the more ironic by the dozens of emails and messages we receive conflating the two. Yes, I work at Adweek. No, I will not be at Advertising Week. Yes, I would love to meet up for a coffee to discuss the industry. No, I cannot meet you at Advertising Week — and so on and so forth, all week long.

While the confusion can get annoying, it does give me a redoubled sympathy for the poor people who share names with celebrities or look identical to infamous historical figures.

But, like Upfronts Week or Cannes, the upside of Advertising Week is that it does bring industry folks from across the country to town, giving publishers, agencies and brands an excellent opportunity to host unrelated events.

I attended one such fete, a “content showcase” hosted by National Geographic, on Wednesday, where I had the pleasure of speaking with editor in chief Nathan Lump. Nathan has both the blessing and the curse of running one of the most beloved brands on the planet, which is quickly transforming into a multimedia powerhouse.

Its unique ownership structure—Disney owns 70% of the company, while a National Geographic nonprofit owns the remaining 30%—has likewise proven a benefit at times and an albatross, to use a relevant metaphor, at others. Regardless, I sat across from the director of “Navalny” and asked if he had any idea that Putin planned to invade Ukraine two weeks after his documentary released. I later saw him sketching caricatures on a napkin.

On Thursday, I got the opportunity to attend a comedy showcase held by Betches, which is moving to supplement its advertising revenue, which constitutes roughly 90% of its entire business, with live, ticketed comedy shows and other endeavors.

In an unexpected twist—or so I was told—Betches had actually been acquired the day before, on Wednesday, by the U.K. publisher behind LadBible, called LadGroup. One memorable headline capturing the news read: Lads and Betches, Unite!

The timing of the event, then, which began with a pre-drinks moment at the Betches HQ before shuttling to the Chelsea Music Hall, gave the evening a celebratory atmosphere. The ebullient mood was undercut slightly, though, by the fact that Betches had been wholly owned by its three founders—a key and longstanding part of its brand story—and I confirmed that beyond their payout, little stood to change for the Betches rank and file.

Plus, LadGroup is publicly traded on the London Exchange, meaning Betches will now have to operate under the scrutiny of the English public markets. The whole narrative is a fresh reminder that the motivations of ownership and the motivations of staff are not always—and in fact somewhat rarely—fully aligned.

Regardless, the comedy was some of the best I have seen in a long time, although straight men should be forewarned that a large portion of the material centers around our various deficiencies. But if you go to a comedy show hosted by a company called Betches expecting otherwise, you probably deserve it!

Finally, the highlight of the week is that my wonderful parents have come to the city for a visit, and I will be out of office for the first half of the upcoming week as a result. We took in the Whitney, a dinner at King and an underwhelming — sorry! — performance of “Six.”

As I write this, we are headed via Amtrak to Washington D.C., where we will be touring the sites in the most touristic fashion possible — there may or may not be a six-hour tour involved — and otherwise hanging around the capitol in case they start plucking passersby at random to serve as Speaker.

On my mind

Earlier in the week I published a story about a number of pedigreed news publishers who, since at least 2020, have been taking advertising money from tobacco companies.

The piece was fascinating to me for a number of reasons. First, several of these companies pledged decades ago to no longer advertise cigarettes, but they make a distinction between promoting cigarettes and running ads for the companies that make cigarettes. Sure!

Second, a number of sources told me that the worsening commercial fortunes of the industry at large almost certainly played a role in the decision.

As Dan Kennedy, a professor who has studied the phenomenon, told me, “At the time that cigarette advertising disappeared, the newspaper business was a lot healthier—today they are pretty loathe to turn down advertising.”

I cut this from the piece, but the issue reflects a broader trend taking place in the industry. As social mores continue to change and publishers’ commercial prospects continue to dim, news outlets are reassessing their relationships with industries that might have formerly been considered taboo.

Alongside tobacco companies, news publishers have also worked prominently with cryptocurrency firms and gambling operators in recent years. Similarly, I wrote a story last month detailing the efforts of a suspicious operation, led by the disgraced former chairman of MoviePass Ted Farnsworth, to acquire the tabloid the National Enquirer.

The effort fell apart, Farnsworth has since been arrested and the shell company he operated — Vinco Ventures — is in the midst of one of the oddest shareholder rights battles I have ever seen.

When I asked an analyst about the situation, he attributed it in part to the same motivations encouraging publishers to work with tobacco companies: Money is tight, valuations have dropped and people are desperate.

The news industry has always walked a fine line when it comes to funding its operations—how many outlets have taken investment from the Saudis in recent years? How many are owned by billionaires who made their fortunes in unscrupulous ways?

And as another analyst pointed out to me, alcohol—like cigarettes—is legal, addictive and responsible for thousands of annual deaths, and yet there is no moral prohibition on its advertising. So why is one noteworthy and the other not?

The question is a timeless one, essentially. Consumers need to trust the outlets providing them news, and as such debates over bias, values and other subjective elements have long figured in to who you read and what that says about you.

How does that moral calculus shift as economic conditions change? It will be fascinating to see.

Published this week

— The aforementioned tobacco advertising story. I am legitimately curious: What do you think about this? Vice advertised cigarettes for years and no one really cared. But as soon as The Boston Globe does it, it becomes news? Would really love to hear your feedback.

— Another scoop, this one about BuzzFeed shutting down what was, by most accounts, a successful audience network established by Complex. Why? When money gets tight — I am sensing a theme here — resources become more precious. The logistical headache of managing invoices for nearly 100 publishers is unimaginably tedious, and as one source told me, “Sometimes the juice is just not worth the squeeze.”

One good rumor

Publishers with businesses reliant on search traffic keep using the word “catastrophic” when describing the potential impacts of Google’s Search Generative Experience (SGE).

The estimate I keep hearing is that it could wipe out fully 66% of their search traffic, and there is little publishers can do outside of pray Google sits on the roll-out, pays them a licensing fee or gets held up by the courts.

If you know anything about how else publishers are preparing, I’m all ears!

Some good readin’

— The era of finding the news on social media—and even Google—is coming to an end. There are creative ways to spin this into good news, but in the short term this will be a devastating adjustment. (The New York Times)

— Likewise, remember when Twitter facilitated the Arab Spring? Gone are the days when social networks and technology companies entertain any pretense of social responsibility. (The New Yorker)

— Jezebel is up for sale. Is the fate of G/O Media to be sold for parts? (Axios)

Cover image: "Skull of a Skeleton with Burning Cigarette,” by Vincent Van Gogh