Condom Advertorial in Slate?

One of the reasons I like Slate so much is that most of their content is written (and edited to be read) in an intuitive style. They publish articles that answer questions you may not have been asking yourself, but as soon as you read the headline you think to yourself, "I've always wondered about that." And like a best friend with smart glasses and a v-neck sweater vest, Slate gives you enough background and context to make the answer seem very plausible.

Slate is also great on sexual health. They've provided excellent reporting on contraception and abortion issues, and endured much user criticism for pieces like James R. Kincaid's thoughtful editorial on JonBenet Ramsey.

But Slate doesn't always pull off sex like a pro. They print banal and useless condom reviews, they add to the science-free hysteria about teenage sexuality, and in the case of Friday's piece about Trojan condoms, they sometimes don't work so hard on the editorial side of the whole writing endeavor.

The piece, which briefly outlines the history of Trojan condoms, is interesting in that we don't always get to hear much about the history of condoms, but it also reads like a 984 word advertisement for Trojan, a company that we're told represents 70.5% of all condom sales in drug stores. Even this statistic seems suspect as it's hard to imagine what non-interested third party is keeping statistics on condom sales in drug stores across the U.S.

While the article ends by pointing out that Trojan's real success is likely its association with reliability in the minds of the general public, and the fact that Trojan is, for many people, synonymous with condoms, it seems a bit out of date by implying that consumers are still unlikely to know the brand names of condoms, and by the end of the article you can't help but feel you just read a really well written press release. Which, for Slate is a disappointment.

Read more - Slate: The Other Trojan War