This is a biography of Samuel Insull, written by John Wasik in 2006. Wasik is "one of America's most prominent business and finance journalists."

Don't read it. It is one of the worst written and edited books I have seen in a long time. Typos abound (he solidered on and Solider's Field), words are omitted or left in, and in general I found my reading flow interrupted on almost every page. What, pray tell, is an advertorial ? I think I figured it out from the context, but why make me do that? Then there's "[Insull's bank] would lend mortgages..."!

Worse is that it is full of fluff - why so much discussion of the life of Mary Garden? Sure, their paths crossed, but not in any important way. Frank Lloyd Wright was a very prominent and important figure in those days, but he and Insull had essentially nothing to do with each other. But we are told that Wright abandoned his family for a client's wife.

But the last straw is that the author either doesn't explain, or incorrectly describes, very important technical matters. He mentions, once, "off-peak", without explaining what load management is, and its critical importance to the electricity industry. Even in describing the financial strategems and structures used (and innovated) by Insull, he paints with either a very broad brush, or one with far too little paint on it. Give me less about Mary Garden's affairs, and at least one paragraph on why the open-ended mortgage was such an innovation and why it was critical to Insull's success.

I read the reviews of the book on johnwasik.com. While I understand that he almost certainly only quotes favorable ones, I really have to wonder how many of the reviewers actually read the book.

Forrest MacDonald's 1962 biography, Insull , is longer, but worth the effort.

quote:

What, pray tell, is an advertorial ?

Maybe it's not common in the USA but it's common enough in the UK and has been for years. Here it means an advertisement written in such a way as to appear to be written by the editorial staff of the journal. The idea is that you might fool the readers into believing that the words are the journal's not the advertisers, and are thus more likely to be true.

I don't believe I need to point out the several flaws in this stratagem.

That's what I figured it meant, though I had never heard the word before. They aren't really very common here, though. Mostly folks take out a full page ad emblazoning their brand, or have a dozen or so fellow-travelers underwrite the cost and their names.

Why do we need such a word? What's wrong with calling them plain old advertisements, especially when the content is described?

quote:

Why do we need such a word? What's wrong with calling them plain old advertisements, especially when the content is described?

Because they differ in several ways from normal advertisements.

Advertorials seem, at first glance, to be features written by the editorial team, although they usually have a discreet title that says something like "advertiser's announcement"). Advertorials will use the same kinds of font, layout and style as do the journal's features and will usually occupy a full page, or pages.

Advertisements will be distinctive - indeed the advertisers will usually use various devices to ensure that they "leap out of the page" - and will usually occupy only a part of a page.

US journals like "Time" use advertorials although I don't know what they call them. Generally speaking the UK media carries less advertising than the US media, although whether this has any bearing on the styles used I'm not sure.

Then you and I are ascribing different meanings to the word.

I have never seen the critter you describe in a US newspaper. Editorials appear on the editorial page and are only rarely, if ever, full page. They usually express the opinion of the editors on a news topic of broad interest. A newspaper's endorsement of a political aspirant is an example.

Opinion pieces not necessarily reflecting the opinion of the newspaper's editors may also appear on the editorial page, or, more commonly, on the page opposite - hence the term op-ed piece .

One does see advertisements for products or services that lamely masquerade as news items. They are rarely full page, however, and part of their camouflage is that they appear alongside legitimate news stories. Often, they tout break-throughs in medicine, technology, or a new product. Usually they are scams. But they don't appear to be opinions. On the contrary, they often purport to state newly and clearly established FACT.

What the author was describing is, I think, what I would call an advocacy ad. These are fairly common, and are often full-page. They advocate the position on some current topic or the benefits of some product or service of the advertiser (or group of advertisers).

An open letter to the community lobbying for or against a governmental action is an example. Another is a general advocacy of a company's practices or products, or even of a broad range of products by an industry (The American Beef Council, for example).

They do not attempt to deceive the reader as to their origin, either in placement or typography.

The advertisement described in the book, as best as I can tell, was not what you describe as an advertorial.

In any case, why does this author use the word? The book was not written for the UK reading public.

But perhaps I read the wrong publications, and advertorials, and the word, are common in the U.S.

Which reminds me of another difficulty I had with the book. In more than one place, he ends a sentence with an abbreviation, like U.S. Because of the use of the "." as an abbreviator, its use as a full stop is not obvious. This is especially the case when the following sentence begins with a proper noun.

Would it have been so hard to spell out United States?

It may be a difference in word usage. "Time" magazine, July 21 issue, has what I would call an advertorial, a four-page item, entitled "Wings of Desire", which is an advertisement for the Farnborough Air Show. This advertorial actually contains within itself a 2-page advertisement for the A380 Airbus. Time entitles it a "special advertising section" and as it is aimed at potential visitors to Farnborough (in the UK) it might not appear in the US edition.

But most editions of Time include similar items.

For once, I'm in agreement with Richard.
It is quite common, here at least, to see things masquerading as articles and given a style similar to the host publication which turn out to be advertisements. I don't read enough US publications to be able to comment on whether the same happens over there.
Generally the only distinction between such an advertising feature and a genuine article will be the words "advertising feature" which legally have to appear somewhere though the typeface and placement for that can make it quite hard to spot.

Actually this, intentionally misleading advertising, is one of my pet hates. Another form, often seen on leaflets shoved through letter box, is where commercial organisations try to trick people into believing they are charities. The worst offender (in my region at least) is something calling itself "Angel of Goodness" and asking you to donate unwanted clothing. This isn't a charity, it's a business. The number printed on the leaflet is the company registration number, not a charity registration number. We had another just yesterday and everything about it looks like it came from a charity. I only know that it doesn't because I've been suspicious in the past and researched it. It isn't a scam. It's a legitimate business - albeit of a morally dubious nature. But it isn't what it pretends to be.

quote:

Another form, often seen on leaflets shoved through letter box

These days I more and more frequently make use of a little-known service provided by Royal Mail - the "refused item" service.

Just mark the item "refused" and put it back into the letter-box and it will be returned to the sender at no expense to you. Sometimes the offending organisations even get the message and stop sending their nonsense.

BobHale:

As I said, what you describe is fairly common here, too. But they do not pretend to be editorials, rather, they attempt to appear to be news items - or as you say, articles. Some even have a phony byline.

At least in usage here, articles, or news items, even though passed by an editor, are not editorials. Editorials are opinion pieces, representing the position of the editorial board. Even if written primarily by one of the editors, they are approved by the board, and are - at least in the papers I read - never signed.

Perhaps they should be called newsments? The full page ads I described would more properly be called advertorials, but not because they attempt to mimic editorials, in the newspaper sense, but because they resemble editorials in that they represent an opinion. But advocacy ad is a better description, surely better understood, and shorter.

I'm pretty sure that most junk mail here is never returned to the sender, by virtue of the class of service.

An anarchist friend of mine takes the trouble to open his, take out the pre-paid return envelope, stuff it with the original content and as much newsprint as it will hold, and mail it back.

quote:

It is quite common, here at least, to see things masquerading as articles . . . which turn out to be advertisements. I don't read enough US publications to be able to comment on whether the same happens over there.

Much the same applies here. My big beef with the them is, since they are advertisements and often have that word along an edge in small type, they are allowed "puffery" (deceit) in what they say and show. As a result, travel supplements often use Photoshopped images with undesirable features (poles, autos, dead vegetation) expunged to impress the viewer with the "natural beauty" of their artificed environment.

Businesses masquerading as charities go one step further here. The Salvation Army places clothing donation boxes ourside its stores. This collectuion system and the sale of their used goods was so successful that some clothing businesses now place their own donation boxes on private property. The boxes have information printed on the outside which can mislead the unwary into thinking they are giving to help the poor. Instead the clothing sales money goes directly to the business owner.

Almost every day I get offers from national banks for credit cards which invariably charge extortionate interest rates. If I throw the paperwork away, it fills the local landfill, which raises my taxes. If I mark their letter "refused," it doesn't cost the company anything when it gets the letter back. But they often include a pre-paid envelope to return the filled-out application. So I cut up their leaflets and application, stuff the debris in the envelope, and mail it back prepaid to them.

1) In my experience, newsments always have the word "advertisement" included, usually at the top. Whether this is to prevent charges of false advertising, or a newspaper policy, I don't know.

2) Your beef with advertisements shouldn't be confined to just newsments, I don't think. Even advocacy ads usually only present one side of the story. Traditional advertising has always trod a fine line between persuasion and fraud.

3) You should look more closely at the credit card fliers. I know several people who have essentially created large interest-free loans by accepting such offers, with their 0% rates for transferred balances. The teaser rate is for only a few months, of course, but during those months dozens of new ones have been received.

4) I wouldn't have used the word "extortionate". The rates may be high, or even seemingly usurious, but there's no extortion involved.

4) I'll ask my postman the next time I see him what he does with "refused" 4th class mail. I very much doubt that it is returned to sender.

1. I think it is up to the publisher. Magazines and newspapers have a permanency that makes being sued more likely for them than for TV. Have you seen the network entertainment-news reporting shows detailing the hullaballoo about "Batman?" Many of the filmed segments pushing the film are not generated by the networks but are provided by the film companies themselves, without attribution. Then they're shown by the networks as if it was actual network reporting, instead of a business deal.

2. Have you ever seen any advocacy group end an argument with "But then again, we could be wrong."

3. This all assumes you want to buy stuff on credit.

4. Perhaps "onerous" would be the better term. Usury is a laughable term since the government constantly raises it higher to keep credit card companies from being prosecuted for criminal activities. I seem to recall when usury was an 8% interest rate. Think you can find that rate anywhere today?

5. (second four) Postal regulations are always changing so I can't be certain what happens to "refused" mail now. I know, when I was company mail clerk in the Army, it went back to the sender. At least that's what General Pershing told me.

This may have been changed thanks to the old trick of mailing a letter to yourself without postage, putting the actual recipient's name as the sender, then marking it "return to sender," getting free delivery. I would never do that.

quote:

This all assumes you want to buy stuff on credit.

Not really. Charge up a bunch of stuff on your credit card, and as soon as possible, transfer the balance to a 0% new card. Repeat after 3 months or so.

Yes, you are buying on credit, but it is free credit. The money in your pocket that you had, but chose not to use, can be invested.

quote:

I'm pretty sure that most junk mail here is never returned to the sender, by virtue of the class of service.

I am pretty sure that Royal Mail returns all undeliverable items, whether they be refused or undeliverable for other reasons. The only items that go to the Dead Letter Office are those that can't be returned because the senders have not shown their address.

I don't know how long undeliverable items stay in the DLO and I assume that eventually they will be disposed of - but there are statutory requirements about mail. After all, it is the property of the sender until it is delivered to its intended recipient and nobody, not even Royal Mail, is allowed to interfere with it.

quote:

"Neither snow, nor rain, nor heat, nor gloom of night shall stay
these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds."

I see the this article is silent on the topic of Rowland Hill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rowland_Hill_(postal_reformer)

To this day British stamps (uniquely in the world so far as I know)) do not show their country of origin since the postage stamp was a British invention.

It wasn't easy to find, but this USPS web page appears to say that refused junk mail is trashed, unless the sender has requested return service.

With very few exceptions, all undeliverable Royal Mail items are returned to sender, providing the address is available. If the address is not shown on the outside of the packaging, Royal Mail will open the item and, if the address is then found, will then return it.

Refused mail is treated in the same way as mail undeliverable for any other reason. http://www.royalmail.com/portal/rm/print?catId=400126&mediaId=2600041

As you can see from their web page, postal regulations are almost unintelligible in places. However, I agree that junk mail is usually trashed, unless "specifically requested by publisher" that it be returned. I was surprised to see that undeliverable first class mail is still sent back to sender. The scam I mentioned will still work.

I know the USPS goes to great lengths to deliver dead letters or "misplaced" mail. Several years ago I played in postal chess tournaments. Each player sent a post card with his next move to his opponent, and depending on distance, the moves could take up to two weeks to arrive. If, after an appropriate time passed, no move came, you would send a "repeat" to remind the other player. On one occasion I sent a repeat, the other player responded claiming he'd sent his move, but he repeated it so we could continue. The game finished about a year later and a year after that, almost to the day, the post office delivered a thoroughly mangled, bedraggled and dirty card, with his original move, in a plastic body bag.

Richard: I'm not saying that you are wrong, but the page you cite doesn't specifically say that it is true for all classes of mail. Our tariffs are sophisticated enough to allow the shipper the option. Perhaps direct mail isn't as prevalent in the UK.

In any case, I doubt that many people go to the trouble of refusing mail. Those who are worked up about it probably mail back the return envelope, which surely is delivered at a cost to the original sender.

Proofreader: I doubt that it will. I think that it will be sent back with Postage Due, though it has been many years since I saw a Postage Due stamp.

Speaking of postal matters and words, I recently learned that the old USPS Book Rate has been renamed Media Rate, and can be used to send digital media, such as floppies and CDs. I didn't ask about flash drives.

quote:

Richard: I'm not saying that you are wrong, but the page you cite doesn't specifically say that it is true for all classes of mail. Our tariffs are sophisticated enough to allow the shipper the option. Perhaps direct mail isn't as prevalent in the UK.

That's the user-friendly page. You can go to the main page of regulations to find the full rules and exclusions. But essentially, everything properly prepaid will be returned to sender if it can't be delivered, providing the return address is shown on the package and providing the sender hasn't said that undelivered mail should not be returned.

If the address is not shown then the package is opened. If it is simply advertising material then it will be disposed of.

And direct mail is, I can assure you, very common over here although I don't think we have the plethora of tariffs that you do. We did have at one time but most of the special rates have gone and we now for letters we only have first or second class, large or small.

The scam mentioned will not work here since items sent without sufficient postage will not be delivered. What you get instead is a card saying that an item is waiting for you with underpaid postage and that you will receive it once you pay the postage due and a handling fee, presently a pound ($2). If you don't pay then the letter is returned to the sender.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
What you get instead is a card saying that an item is waiting for you with underpaid postage and that you will receive it once you pay the postage due and a handling fee, presently a pound ($2). If you don't pay then the letter is returned to the sender.

This also applies to letters that they have been "unable" to deliver which gives the post office the chance to work the scam of intentionally not delivering stuff and forcing people to pay the handling charge (which was a deal more than £1 on the several recent occasions that they have worked it on me.)
Before you suggest complaining, I have, in person and in writing, to everyone I could think of. The result has been that my service has got even worse. Nobody likes a troublemaker.