Harper’s Bazaar is v. v. excited about the new fragrance from Estée Laude, Sensuous. So excited that they've booked Gwenyth Paltrow, the face of Sensuous, for the cover (considered a major get!) and dedicated 40 – four zero – pages to Paltrow as well as Elizabeth Hurley, Carolyn Murphy and Hilary Rhoda, who also, in their off time, collect fees as the faces of Sensuous. Critics might say that there's some sordid pay-for-play advertising/editorial deal going on at Bazaar, but that's nonsense! After all, do you see an ad from Estee Lauder in the magazine? Nooooo! And the magazine said in a statement, "Like many magazines, we often feature celebrities to coincide with their beauty and fashion launches." Obviously, "coincide" does not refer to some outlandish sponsorship deal set up by the publisher, but a pure editorial decision that gives readers what they want: beautiful women in a magazine.

The [editorial] package includes the magazine’s cover of Ms. Paltrow, 38 pages in the consecutive advertising-free section called “the well,” plus 2 pages in the beauty section.

The opening page of the well declares its intentions: “The faces of Estée Lauder’s new Sensuous fragrance wear the highlights of the FALL COLLECTIONS.”

The magazine’s Web site also features a video that Lauder plans to show at its cosmetics counters.

But, uh, here's the thing: Like we said to BMW, own it.

Editor Glenda Bailey would be right to think that, at the end of the day, readers don't actually care that the editorial being thrown their way was paid for by an advertiser. That's because at the in this era, most any coverage in a women's beauty/fashion book gets placed by advertiser interest; A-listers don't appear on the covers of these magazines just because they're pretty. They're there because they're representing a movie, a designer, or a brand. It's the editors' job to feed an audience craving this type of material, and the publishers' job to match advertisers with it, creating a nice cycle where everybody wins.

But readers are savvier than ever. They understand that the face cream plug in the front of the book isn't there because a beauty editor tested it for three months and realized, "Hey, this is the best cream for combination skin!" It's because the brand, through PR, marketing, and advertising, got its way into the hands of said editor, and that's why she knows enough about it to tell readers. And more than likely, the skin care company bought a full page.

The same goes for Paltrow & Co. Why not come out and say, "Yeah, we're featuring the cover girls of the new Sensuous, because Estee Lauder paid to reach you guys." Because it's going to violate the church-state barrier between edit and advertising? Please. Fashion magazines are not temples of journalism; they are entertainment venues, and it's silly to continue this charade if you're going to put yourself out there and accept the enormous ad dollars for such an extreme marketing ploy.

If that's your M.O., fine; just own it. If you're really trying to create an embracing, transparent environment for your readers, that's the least you could do.

[NYT]