LIPPINCOTT’S MAGAZINE
Its Advertising—a Protest and an Excuse
A few days ago a physician wrote to The Journal enclosing two advertisements taken from the current issue of Lippincott’s magazine. One of these was a half-page advertisement of that outrageous fraud, the “Oxydonor;” the other was a full-page advertisement of J. B. Lippincott Company, Philadelphia, calling for salesmen “to present standard medical books to physicians only.”
The physician sending in this material asked us to send to Lippincott’s a pamphlet showing the fraudulence of the Oxydonor. Instead of doing so, we sent the pamphlet to the physician and suggested that he write a personal letter in the belief that individual missionary work is the most effective way of fighting fraud. Accordingly the doctor wrote to Lippincott’s and received in reply this letter from the advertising department of that publication:
“Your letter of the 23d received, and in reply beg to say that we do not approve of fraudulent advertising, and we have never before been advised that the advertisement to which you call our attention was objectionable. In fact, we know nothing whatever about it. [Italics ours.—Ed.] It came to us, as do most of the others, through an advertising agency, and while we do not willingly publish anything that is fraudulent or objectionable, it is not our custom to verify the claims of advertisers [Italics, again, ours.—Ed.] especially when the same copy is being run in almost every other high-grade publication.
“We have a very high regard for the American Medical Association, and they undoubtedly are doing a splendid work in ridding the country of fake medical preparations, but the mere fact that they condemn some of our advertisers is hardly sufficient proof for us to refuse the advertising, because, if the advertiser desires to do so, he can make us prove in the courts that he is a faker, or claim damages from us for refusing to publish his advertisement. [Our italics.—Ed.] If the American Medical Association will guarantee to protect the publishers against loss from damage suits brought by advertisers whose business they refuse to accept, then, we believe that the publishers would gladly reject them, but not many of the publishers are in a position to investigate the merits of all the advertising that is offered, especially when the claims are backed up by affidavits of reputable people who believe themselves to have been cured by the preparation.
“We certainly do not wish to jeopardize our medical publications by advertising fake schemes or propositions of any kind, and we thank you for writing us concerning the matter and will now look into this particular case.”
Photographic reproduction (much reduced) of two advertisements from January, 1914, Lippincott’s. One of a fraudulent quasi-medical device, the “Oxydonor”; the other, calling for salesmen to introduce “standard medical books to physicians.”
This letter discloses the workings of the brain of an advertising man of the old school. The principles enunciated therein are those that dominated the advertising field until quite recently. They represent the laissez faire doctrine as applied to advertising. At that time the only unacceptable advertising copy was that which would debar the publication using it from the United States mails. This was the yardstick by which all advertising was measured at that time.
The economic conscience has since awakened. There are few reputable magazines today, we venture to believe, that would be willing to go on record to the effect that it is not their “custom to verify the claims of advertisers.” The modern, progressive advertising man recognizes not only the responsibilities his profession imposes, but also realizes that, from the narrower view of enlightened self-interest, the greatest menace to the future of modern advertising is the fraudulent advertisement.
The claims on the part of the advertising department of Lippincott’s that it dares not refuse to accept fraudulent advertisements because the advertiser might bring suit against it for refusing to accept his advertisement is a statement whose falsity is exceeded only by its silliness. Equally preposterous is the statement that Lippincott’s will willingly refuse to accept fraudulent advertisements provided the American Medical Association will guarantee to protect the Lippincott Company against loss from damage suits that may be brought by the exploiters of the frauds whose advertisements are refused.
It may be news to Lippincott’s to learn that there are a score and more of newspapers and magazines that are accepting the findings of the American Medical Association on medical frauds and rejecting advertisements of such frauds. There are many newspapers that send us the medical advertising “copy” submitted to them and ask for an opinion on it. When that opinion is unfavorable, these papers refuse such advertisements. This is being done daily. We have yet to hear of any “patent medicine” faker or quack even threatening to bring suit because his advertisements have been rejected.
The advertising department of Lippincott’s may therefore take heart. When an advertisement of an outrageous fake like the Oxydonor is submitted to it, instead of accepting the money for it, meantime muttering an inaudible protest at the unfortunate position in which it has been placed, it may look the fraud in the eye and say Boo! The faker will not bite.
Before leaving the subject, we are constrained to refer to Lippincott’s medical publication, the Annals of Surgery. We begin to realize now why that journal offers a welcome haven to such products as Sal Hepatica, Bromidia, Papine, Gray’s Glycerin Tonic, Fellows’ Syrup of Hypophosphites, et al. Presumably the same “custom” obtains in the acceptance of advertising for the Annals of Surgery as for Lippincott’s, namely that the Lippincott Company does “not verify the claims of advertisers.” Possibly the Annals of Surgery is afraid that, should it reject the Sal Hepatica advertisement, for instance, it might he haled into court! Let us trust, for their peace of mind, that the publishers of the Annals of Surgery do not receive an advertisement from Old Doc Hartman for a full page display of Peruna. The mental anguish they would undergo in reluctantly accepting this advertisement—under the fear that Hartman would “claim damages” if it were rejected—is painful to contemplate.—(From The Journal A. M. A., Feb. 7, 1914.)