Trouble with the Editorial Firewall?

It had been a while since I'd watched Tim Mosso live on YouTube. I'm not sure why, I think maybe my notifications were somehow updated by the algorithm and I didn't get a pop-up while I was cooking dinner on Monday night (usually the time I would stream Mosso's show).

An AI generated image meant to represent the separation of editorial and commercial interests.

Mosso is absolutely my favorite when it comes to live discussion of watches and the watch industry on YouTube. There are a lot of reasons, but most of them boil down to the fact that he is arguably the most knowledgable of anyone on the topic.

Well into his live show recently, Mosso read a question from the chat which immediately grabbed my attention. The question was: "Could you tell me what happened that led you to not being able to discuss Rolex anymore?" This was the first I'd ever heard that a watch media "creative" was restricted when it came to a certain topic. My ears perked up.

Here is a transcript of Mosso's reply to his viewer:

"Sure, in order to be certified pre-owned we have to make sure that we're always on the same page as [Rolex is] which means that in 95% of the circumstances any disclosure or representations have to be more or less approved by them and that's fine, fair deal, Rolex certified pre-owned is a big deal for us we built an entire workshop for it we got watchmakers and technicians ... Given the investment I can tow the line, that's fine, I hope that in the long run I can gain their trust to have more autonomy because Tudor has been very cool with letting me basically plow my own path"

I was pretty floored by Mosso's response. One of the more regular discussion points in the watch community is the level of editorial independence of writers, podcasters, YouTubers and the like. If I'm honest, I have a hard time determining: a) exactly where we are on the spectrum of media independence and b) whether that location on the independence spectrum means media consumers are getting the right type of information (or not).

In order to advance the discussion, let's begin with some background. Media's editorial independence from commercial interests is not a new subject. For many, many years, journalism schools, journalists, and media firms have been aware of the possibility that writers and other reporters might alter their coverage in pursuit of "the dollar" (or sterling or euro or whatever). Historically at least, these concerns were driven by the fact that media derived income from (at least) two sources: subscribers and advertisers. Many media outlets would "insulate" the editorial side of a business so that journalists would feel free to report whatever was relevant for readers. This insulation was often referred to as a "firewall" in which advertiser and subscriber revenues were handled by specific departments. Employees in those departments should not "cross over" to editorial and sway journalists in any particular direction.

Breaches of the "firewall" created massive controversy. In 1999, the Los Angeles Times published a magazine about the opening of a new sports stadium and agreed to split ad sales with the developer of the stadium. Reporters didn't know they were, effectively, working for a real estate enterpeneur. When this deal became public, the LA Times published a 30,000 word apology. When the Church of Scientology paid to place a piece of "advertorial" writing in The Atlantic there was similar outrage.

In more rent years, though, the notion of an editorial firewall almost seems quaint if not passé. The very concept of an "influencer" stands in contradiction to the notion that advertising payment would be separate from creation of content since, often, an advertising payment is received directly by the creator. And, since no well-functioning business model has emerged to replace the traditional, but faltering, subscriber-advertising paradigm, many have reasonably suggested that everything is up in the air, including the firewall (although even in recent years, trade press members have continued to assert the importance of editorial independence).

So let's return to Tim Mosso's comments on YouTube, because they speak to a concern often raised by watch collectors and enthusiasts. Can writers, podcasters, and YouTubers employed by official watch dealers offer editorial content without bias, self-censoring or, perhaps more concerningly, censorship by dealers and / or brands? It is pretty clear from Mosso's comment that the risks of censorship and bias are real.

It is not possible for me to quantify the level of these risks. If watch publications (independent or otherwise) published a code of ethics and journalistic standards (such as this one at the American Society of Business Publication Editors), that would certainly clarify the risks for audiences. I did a quick spot check of some of the major watch publications and I could not find statements of ethics and journalistic standards. And, to be fair, I do not have one on this blog (a situation I plan to remedy in the not-to-distant future, I will note that I do not currently sell advertising on this blog).

The merger of editorial and commercial interests continues apace in many industries. Hodinkee's acquisition by Watches of Switzerland is perhaps the most recent, and noteworthy, example of this trend. Will Hodinkee also face the type of restrictions Mosso mentioned in his YouTube episode? I can only hope not. It was due to Hodinkee's coverage that I, and many others, learned a great deal about the history and present of Rolex and many other brands. I reached out to Watches of Switzerland to ask about this matter but they did not respond. I reached out to Rolex and they did reply, but they only gave me a link to their CPO program (I do appreciate a response and I hope in the future they will offer more detailed responses).

In a recent Discord chat, a participant remarked "we get the watch media we deserve" (which was, perhaps, a nod to a book which expressed a similar sentiment). If watch enthusiasts won't spend meaningful dollars for the production of media (through subscribing or the like), then any watch media which is produced must be funded through another source. Those sources may have certain priorities which may very well shape the content which is produced. It remains to be seen if new publishing models will emerge, models that reinforce an editorial firewall to the benefit of readers.

Note to readers: I also reached out to other parties I mentioned in this post to see if they wanted to offer a comment but I did not receive a response.

---

My book on the history of Rolex marketing is now available on Amazon! It debuted as the #1 New Release in its category. You can find it here.

You can subscribe to Horolonomics updates here.