Bill:

Interesting situation. My take -- it's win-win for everyone if they stay pragmatic.

Situation: Between issue pub date and recognition event, an issue-honoree is down-sized, no longer with firm.

Solution: Firm accepts award on ex-employee's behalf before the event, and gives it to them later, privately, delivery means TBD (messengered, mailed, etc.).

Some compromise has to be struck; publication keeps "face" by keeping its honoree list in-tact.

Advertiser/sponsor presents self in better light, too; honoree is not being denied recognition, but as former employee, said recognition will be private.

Is this a solution with absolute integrity for all parties? Not at all. However, we're all of us in the "make the best of a bad situation" operational mind-set.

We have to remember that neither the publication nor the advertiser can allow this single-situation to overshadow the event itself, and why ostensibly its being held in the first place (and how its being $$$ supported).

Please define "attractive." Do you mean physically or work ethic wise. My answer would depend on that deficition.

Phyllis--not sure why it matters what the publication is honoring. But for the sake of the case, assume it is for something work-related.

Erik--I think the hard question is whether the publication is right to drop someone from the list during pre-publication story compilation simply based on potential lack of financial support. Should lists like those published by many trade publishers be tailored with financial considerations in mind or considered to be editorial content off limits to business considerations?

--Bill

I think the problem in ethics comes to play when you are giving an award which is conditioned to the honoree's company paying for a table. What the heck kind of "award" is that really then? This is quite like writing an article about a company, when that company just happens to have paid for a full-page ad. So this award is nothing more than payola, especially given the fact that the determining factor was the company sponsoring a table. This whole affair is a bit sleazy, really. Basically you're just paying someone to give you an award.

To take the person off the list would be absolutely fine if the list was created by some subjective definition of "attractive" (I am hoping the list is not for physical attractiveness...)since I would assume that being unemployed would be one of those "unattractive" qualities.

If the list was based on some objective criteria vetted by the editorial department (what that would be I don't know), it would be absolutely wrong to pull that person's name off the list. Once the list is created, it's news. Nothing that happened afterward changes the fact that the person was chosen for the list.

All I ask is I hope that we aren't considering anything like this. Super Lawyers and Law Dragon 500 is bad enough. TAL's Swim Suit edition would be just too much.

I agree with Eric for the most part. I think that this is a case where everything is relative. The List is related to the Luncheon and the Luncheon is related to the business of selling the tables/sponsorships involved.

Therefore without the Tables/Sponsorships the Lists are less likely to be made in the future. Along this line of thinking I can only ask "Which do I value more, the List or the Luncheon"

I personally believe in editorial integrity (List) over financial profit (Luncheon).

I think our brand name loses value anytime we sacrifice the integrity of the editorial content. It's a fine line that I am glad to say I don't have the "Luxury" of having to walk.

Presenting the award to the downsized journalist would increase the prestige of the award. It would be some evidence the award is not just a rigged beauty contest.

Speaking from some experience in these matters (on the business side, for those who don’t know me), picking honorees based on the hope that they or their firm will buy something makes me very uncomfortable.

First – Picking someone in that fashion takes away from the credibility of the list.

Second – There’s no way to guess who will buy a table or sponsorship. Since we’ve been doing this, we have seen some “strange/interesting” behavior from honorees’ firms and companies. E.g. firms who refuse to buy anything so their peers know that they didn’t buy their way onto the list; firms who buy the biggest sponsorship and multiple tables in a ‘damn them all if they think the honor was bought’ attitude; and a firm who bought a sponsorship, but didn’t want to be listed or acknowledged as having done so.

Third – There are no guarantees that the honorees will actually be able to attend the event - no matter how enticing they look as potential purchasers. As the saying goes, sometimes “Life Happens” and the honorees have to decline.

Lastly, I believe our success at these events stems from the fact that we are actually not selling tables and sponsorships. What we offer are options to merchandize the honor they have received.

One of those options includes a table where an honoree can invite colleagues, friends and family to share in their celebration. Another option is sponsorship where they, their firm or their client can congratulate them, and publicly join in the celebration.

That may sound like marketing spin – but consider that if the honorees were not of the caliber that we have named in the past, no amount of marketing would convince them that promoting their honor was worth the cost of admittance.

If we chose to ignore some outstanding contributors to the legal profession because their firms haven’t shown a satisfactory purchasing history, we will quickly erase all credibility in both the lists we produce as well as the integrity of the brand.

It completely depends on the intention behind the list- at inception. If you stay true to your intention, it will be easy to decide whether or not the bar is flexible. If you change game-plans midway, I think you jeopardize trust with your audience...a short-term financial gain might not be worth the trust you'd potentially lose.

Maybe I'm being naive here, but would anyone read TIME's "Person of the Year" issue if he thought the Person of the Year was chosen because his company would buy the most space in the magazine or the most tables at a dinner recognizing the Person?

I think/hope not.

The same principle should apply to how we should decide who/what gets written about in our publications--whether on a list of "Best Law Firms" or in a simple news story.

That is, we sell interesting and important information that is credible and reliable. Information that is published based on who paid us the most to publish is neither reliable or credible, which makes it uninteresting and unimportant.

I can't imagine anyone using our sites or reading our publications if they thought how we write our information was for sale.

Yes, the publisher/editor (I forget who the actor was in Bill's hypothetical was) crossed the line.

This is a pretty sticky scenario. And it reminds me that it's good to be a copywriter.

But I do have an opinion.

To those who objected to "attractive", I understand. They are saying: "we want to honor people for what they have achieved, not for what they are physically" (which is a matter of luck, most times). So if we think: 'Most Respected....' and forget semantic parsing, the biz problem presented becomes pretty clear.

I agree with several observations already made. Especially Eric's and Kevin's.

Sure, the publisher is right to look at the pragmatic side of things--the financial angle, especially during fiscally tenuous times. That is part of his/her job.

But Kevin's solution described exactly what I was thinking: the table (and the revenue it will generate) does not have to be 'written off'. Other bodies can be found to fill the table. What if 5 of the 25 finalists' companies were approached, and each asked if they would like to bring an additional 2 or 3 guests at half price, because an 'open' table has become available. This arrangement could at least salvage 50% of the take, assuming all seats get filled.

Then--as for the award itself...it probably should not be dropped because some talented, respected person has become the victim of economic circumstances beyond their control. All of the reasons already supplied by other posters...regarding integrity, ethics and credibility ...I concur with all of them.

Would it be possible to leave the person's name on the list of the esteemed--and place their picture in the program, with a little bio and explanatory note describing why this person deserved the honor, and revealing truthfully why they could not be present at the event. This program note would be developed with the full participation of the organization that was forced to 'un-hire' them.

Perhaps this sounds a little too idealistic. But I think if an attempt were made to resolve the conflict in this way, there would at least be an appreciation on all sides that the publisher is really trying to do the right thing--which always pays off in the long run.

As an editor, I would absolutely not remove the person's name from the list, if that person had been fairly chosen based on the criteria established by our publication(s).

If the person had died before publication, would we remove him/her from the list? Absolutely not. We might add a notation that the person in question had passed away and that we join his/her firm in mourning the loss, but we would never remove the name.

I think the same criterion applies to any other situation.

Bill,

Keep the honoree. Whether the list is created by editorial or business, we’re monetizing our integrity, which is ultimately our only asset.

I personally can't see how you could remove someone from an award without sacrificing the integrity of said award. The only way I could even conceive of that scenario is if it was stated from the beginning, that in order to be eligible you needed to remain employed by the firm you were nominated with. Either scenario to me still seems like it would be crossing a line we wouldn't want to cross.

Bill,

I agree with Wendy, we should keep the honoree. After all they did make the list and I believe the integrity of the list would be in jeopardy if he/she were to be removed for financial reasons.

From the honoree's viewpoint, removing them could damage their credibility as they would have already shared this good news with colleagues, family and friends. By keeping the honoree in the pub, their reputation/work will be public and could ultimately increase their marketability, even leading to the current employer having a change of heart and rehiring him/her.

I'm frankly surprised (and distressed) that this is even a matter of discussion at a journalism company. Editorial decisions should never be made on the basis of sales opportunities, and I speak as a writer and editor with long, long years of experience in compiling 45 Under 45 and Litigation Department of the Year lists. We're supposed to be selling journalism, not tables at a luncheon.

Late to this party, but had to leave my quick reaction:

1. Assuming that we're talking about physical attractiveness, giving awards to "attractive" lawyers is an insult to their professional qualifications and demeans the journal that's providing the awards. I'd be embarrassed to be associated with that kind of stunt.

2. A trade journal that creates an awards program of any kind primarily or even partially as an advertising gambit (and yes, I know this goes on all the time) is selling off its journalistic ethics and credibility. The periodical might as well be honest with both the winners and its readership and call it "25 Rich Firms Pay Us To Promote One Of Their Lawyers." Slap "Advertorial" on the section and don't pretend that merit has anything to do with it.

3. If a journal has created an award for the purpose of selling sponsorships, then sure, it might as well drop the lawyer who was cut by the firm, because this was never about the lawyer in the first place -- this was about getting the firm to pay the periodical to promote one of its people. This isn't the point in the discussion to debate the ethics of the move -- that point should have taken place back when the journal first decided to partake in this scheme.

What, our readers aren't cynical enough about the legitimacy of what they read in our pages? The only thing we have left to keep our readers around is our integrity, and every time we dress up sponsorship as journalism, we chip away at the integrity some more.