by Sarah Kelley » Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:21 pm
Sorry I'm a little late to the game on this, but as editor of LEO I feel compelled to respond and dispute some of the inaccuracies recently relayed in this thread:
1) The suggestion that Village Anchor (or Blind Pig the year before) in any way compensated LEO through ad buys in exchange for winning is ludicrous, insulting, and wrong. Regardless of whether one likes LEO, I can assure you that sales has zero say over editorial content.
2) One of the commenters, Carla — a former employee of LEO (whom is missed!) — defends LEO by saying editorial is in no way involved in Readers' Choice. That is not the case. Upon becoming editor in 2010, I completely took over the counting of votes to eliminate the appearance of impropriety (i.e., sales folks rigging the winners).
3) Is Readers' Choice a money-making venture? Of course. It is one of our most profitable issues of the year. And though it is not my favorite issue from an editorial standpoint, making money is crucial to keeping this ship afloat, and many readers seem to really enjoy the issue.
4) I knew people would grumble that one restaurant won so many awards, but I was not going to alter the results to make it look better.
5) The day sales starts to dictate editorial content ("do this" or "don't do this") is the day I walk away .... period.
Take it or leave it, that's the truth.
Best,
Sarah