How can we make the media industry more sustainable — and how can the media push the sustainability movement? At the Media Matters in a Sustainable World panel at Opportunity Green, the answers to those questions hinged largely around advertising.

Dwell president and publisher Michela O’Connor Abrams kicked off the panel by detailing how ungreen the current magazine industry is: 3 trillion magazines are printed in the US every year. Only 21% of those are recycled; only 32% are printed on recycled paper. The problem, according to Michela, is that advertisers focus too much on the number of subscribers — which forces magazines to drive up subscriber numbers by offering subscriptions way below cost.

This practice may increase the number of subscriptions, but only by inflating the number with people who aren’t very engaged with the magazine. Michela urged advertisers to start asking for engagement and stop looking for the most people they can reach, because “those are not real numbers.”

While I think advertisers are not the only group to blame since there’s still much the magazine industry could do to itself to green its practices (i.e. the other 68% of magazines could start using recycled paper), the tension between the ad-supported financial model of media and the role of the media in filtering information became the central topic in this panel discussion.

Michela talked, for example, about her past choice to accept a Hummer ad — which angered many Dwell readers. Her rationale at the time: In addition to needing the money, Michela felt the Dwell audience was smart and could judge advertised products for themselves. After running the ad, however, Michela changed her mind: “We had so much influence that it really just wasn’t okay.”

Michela’s story was especially poignant for me because on Friday, I rejected an ad. Why? The ad was for an anti-immigration organization that basically scapegoated immigrants to the U.S. as the root cause of our environmental problems. Unlike Michela, however, I didn’t make the decision on my own. I tweeted the issue — and had readers and friends weigh in instantly on both Twitter and Facebook. Most respondents said reject the ad, though a few suggested accepting it for financial (an opportunity to take money away from the other side) and other reasons. (i.e. “How can you have a dialog if both sides cannot be heard? Use it to your advantage to talk about how dumb it is.”)

Though magazines do have the option of rejecting certain ads, the advertiser dominated financial model’s still a problematic one that, as Scientific American VP and publisher Bruce Brandfon put it, “makes you do things you wish you didn’t do.” Unlike Dwell, however, Scientific American has positive revenue and profit from readers, Bruce said, and is “not as leveraged on the advertisers as some others.” Scientific American thus has more freedom in deciding which ads to accept or reject. Not only does Scientific American refuse tobacco or weapons advertising, “We also have refused to take things that are not scientifically substantiated,” Bruce said.

In contrast, Jonathan Klein, VP of NBC Universal’s Green is Universal, said “I don’t know that we’ve ever turned away an advertiser.” 80% of NBC Universal’s owned by the less-than-green General Electric, after all.

Less-than-green companies often try to marry their brand names to publications with good, green reputations, basically greenwashing the company’s image by buying advertising. And because magazines and other media do need money to survive, rejecting advertising can be a tough choice indeed. The more you’re willing to pay for the media you care about, Michela said, the better media choices we’ll have.

The panel left me thinking maybe I really should finally buy that premium subscription to Salon.com…. As for getting readers to pay for content on green LA girl? I’m rather doubtful I can make this happen, and for now, hope to sustain this blog with the writing I do for other publications — most of which are heavily dependent on ad revenue….

0 Comments