The other day, a friend at a consulting firm asked me about some of the articles in our October issue. She had an idea for a story, but wasn't sure whether to submit it.

Naturally, I encouraged her to let us know what was on her mind. We receive recommendations every day from readers at airports, consultants, suppliers and even government agencies. "Your idea is just as good anyone else's. Why wouldn't you submit it?" I asked her. Much to my surprise, she thought that if she submitted an idea, she would need to write it, ask the airport for permission and possibly even convince her company to buy an ad to accompany it.

None of these are true! When anyone submits a story idea, all we're looking for is the idea – and a way to contact those involved with the project. We do the writing, secure the necessary clearances and take care of all the other details. And we certainly would never require anyone to advertise in exchange for editorial coverage! No pay to play here. Consultants and suppliers advertise in Airport Improvement because they want to; because we have the circulation and editorial content that are most relevant to their current and prospective customers.

I also believe that airports shouldn't advertise in airport publications – not for editorial coverage, to promote their facility or to publicize awards that they or their employees have "won." Where's the benefit? Airports are not in a position to sell to other airports, nor do they generate business from them; so why spend money advertising to them? Barring services like DFW's Fire Training Research Center, which is marketed to other airports, I don't see any reason to ask an airport to spend advertising money with an airport publication.

Advertising can be an incredibly successful tool. Editorial coverage is also very powerful. Each has benefits and can complement the other. But when used incorrectly, or under duress, they can do more harm than good.

Cheers,