Signs of Change at Billboard Magazine?

For years, Billboard magazine has been the music industry’s bible, offering a strong, independent voice in its coverage of the record business. Whenever industry observers cite the progress of a new album, they draw from the Billboard charts.

But is the pop trade magazine in danger of losing some of its editorial freedom? In other words, could advertisers influence what Billboard will publish?

Some industry insiders have already begun to wonder after reading Xeroxed copies of a recent two-page internal commentary sent to Billboard staffers by Group Publisher John Babcock Jr.

Largely devoted to encouraging more cooperation between the magazine’s editorial and advertising staffs, Babcock’s vaguely-worded memo suggests:

* That Billboard’s editorial staff should be “habitually querying” its ad sales people--”they have info on new products, marketing strategies and people.”

* That activities at the largest record companies whould get more play than the same activities at smaller companies. But “when there’s a difficult choice to be made on the same subject, I say the advertiser gets the call.”

* That its editorial staff “should react positively to sales requests . . . Ad Sales needs to be able to show an advertiser by example that for the right story they can help communicate it to Editorial with positive results.”

* That with the magazine’s ad sales being off over the past year, “we need to take care not to assume a we-they attitude. For without Editorial and Advertising constantly acknowledging and listening to each other we miss opportunities and alienate revenue sources.”

Babcock makes it clear he is firmly opposed to any “quid pro quo stance” between ad and editorial staffs. And according to several Billboard columnists and writers, they are very rarely--if ever--under pressure to pull punches with their coverage.

Still, some industry observers say the magazine has rarely taken the lead on reporting such controversial industry issues as independent promotion investigations or MCA’s alleged involvement with mob figure Sal Pisello--issues which received far more coverage in trade papers like Daily Variety and the Hollywood Reporter.

Others disagreed. “Considering how many times I’ve had to call and complain about the slant of certain stories I wouldn’t say Billboard has gotten any softer,” said MCA Records sr. vice president Larry Solters. “We still in get fights over the way they cover stories.”

Babcock was in France and could not be reached for comment. However, John Babcock Sr., Billboard’s vice president of corporate communications, insisted there had been “positively no change” in Billboard’s editorial policy.

“Billboard doesn’t give advertisers any preferential treatment. In fact, we’ve probably bent over backwards too far the other way, with our editorial staff having absolutely no contact with the advertising side. I think John’s just trying to remedy that by encouraging better communications between editorial and sales. Billboard has always called it the way we see it. We did a lot of hard reporting on (legal problems involving veteran industry exec) Morris Levy and the industry came down on us like a ton of bricks.”

Asked about the memo’s recommendation that in certain instances “the advertiser gets the call,” Babcock Sr. replied: “I can see where that could be misinterpreted, but I think John just wants to create better harmony between the editorial and ad staffs.”