A firm stance toward advertisers led to success

The circulation of *Die Zeit* rose from 258,000 in 1969 to 353,000 last year. Bucerius attributed this success to the editorial staff’s independence from the publisher and also cited the fact that the paper would rather accept financial losses than bow to advertisers who are dissatisfied with its writing style and cancel their ad orders as a result.

Dear readers,

the newspaper clipping above, taken from a major Zurich daily, would most likely be overlooked by the “average reader” —I probably would have done the same if I hadn’t gained a bit of experience with NFS over the years and therefore become more attuned to such issues. In short, the gist of this brief article is simply that, in the long run, it is better to maintain a clear and firm stance toward advertisers—that is, to under no circumstances tolerate any influence on editorial content—or even on other advertisements. The NFS editorial team is aware that a magazine of this size and print quality would be too expensive without advertisements and could no longer be sold. Since we must—and want to—forgo honoraria and editorial salaries, this approach allows us to keep printing and shipping costs and revenue reasonably balanced. Administration must also be kept to a minimum. This can occasionally lead to delays or other glitches. It must be particularly emphasized that, with this modest administrative setup, it is practically impossible to actively solicit advertisers and subscribers. For this reason, NFS will likely never experience rapid growth—but it remains our magazine, and we can provide information free from power struggles, without compromising our independence or freedom of expression. This is a task that could better be described as a “tightrope walk”—one that has already proved to be the downfall of many editors in all sorts of fields, especially when advertisers or potential advertisers seek to influence editorial content—a problem that has become almost commonplace today not only in the newspaper industry, but also on radio and TV. “He who pays the piper calls the tune!” This saying is all too often used in this context, leading to media that is stereotypical, boring, and uninteresting. People ignore the problems; conflicts are not resolved; a perfect, illusory world emerges—one that doesn’t exist, yet which people desperately try to maintain. As a result, a magazine loses credibility, becomes detached from reality, and soon loses its close connection with its readership. Diplomacy is certainly an art—or a form of art, if you will—but it is by no means a virtue. It is the ability to ultimately arrive at the truth with infinite patience and countless detours; without it, diplomacy simply cannot function. Diplomacy without truth, without a connection to reality, would be nothing but pretense, deceit, dishonesty, and fear of consequences—a never-ending masquerade—an art for art’s sake.

As you can see, striking a balance as an editorial team isn’t very easy. On the one hand, we need advertisers; on the other hand, it’s not enough to simply rotate editors as frequently as possible, as has happened at other magazines. However, there are always some very forward-thinking companies that advertise precisely where they feel they can maintain contact with the readership—in those magazines where there’s no shortage of spice, where kings become completely “ordinary” people. And it’s precisely in this regard that I’m optimistic and believe we can continue to do without those who say, “We’d advertise if…”. Progress and positive change don’t always come without problems—and certainly not without ruffling a few feathers along the way. I do believe, however, that Swiss model aviation deserves to move forward.

Best regards

Emil Giezendanner