by Darren Gilbert
on 22 February 2012
When I asked Karl Gostner about the weaknesses of radio, he feigned shock and asked, “What weaknesses?” Of course he was joking. It’s a reality. While mass media platforms like radio and TV have their strengths, it also has its weaknesses. However, Gostner prefers to call them challenges.
As much as radio is known for its audio content, this core aspect can also be viewed as a limitation. One only has to look at TV with its audio-visual combo and what that brings to the experience of the audience. This is not a criticism of radio in any way but rather an observation and a challenge to all radio stations to be relevant. Radios are easy to switch off. They can also be viewed as a background medium, meaning that while they are on, they can easily be forgotten about or go unnoticed.
That’s not something TV has to worry about. It is a medium that demands your undivided attention. However, while it might capture and hold your attention, it falls short when it comes time for sustained interaction. Yes, there are of course specific programmes such as your talk shows that ask you to call in and interact but other than these, it is a one-way channel. It won’t stay like this though, and especially so with the convergence of the media.
This leads both Monde Twala and Gostner to a joint challenge that both radio and TV need to address. In fact, it is a challenge that all mass media needs to address. “Mass media platforms don’t have the ability to service niche markets,” says Gostner. But it’s not a challenge that won’t eventually be overcome, he adds.
In fact, Gostner believes that all of these challenges have solutions. No matter the medium, it all comes down to your content. “If what comes from the radio station [or TV] doesn’t connect with your users or engage with them, you have lost.”
What do you think? Please leave your comment below.
by Samantha Cook
on 15 February 2012
I must admit that, prior to entering the media industry as a proper grown-up journalist, I knew relatively nothing about community media beyond reading my local Randburg Sun every Thursday. And then, once I did start working in the industry and meeting with people in the advertising industry, I immediately started feeling the undercurrent of a basic lack of belief in the effectiveness of community media.
While media and advertising professionals alike proclaim the benefits of having such a community-centric medium, it has often been seen as a poor advertising platform (partially due to a lack of research, and by extension, measurability), and community journalism dubbed as ‘soft journalism’. However, the more I heard and read about its potential, the more I started believing that community media has been greatly underestimated.
So you can understand my excitement in the lead-up to the release of the Compass24 findings – research that could drastically change the way that community media, and more specifically, community newspapers, are viewed by the media and advertising industries. However, after reflecting on what was said, I have realised that I could have known these insights simply by looking at my own behaviour and my own demands as a consumer. For instance, I read my local Randburg Sun, cover to cover, every single Thursday. Why do I read it? Because I want to know what is happening in my area and immediate community, and I simply can’t get that content anywhere else. I want to do brands doing cool things in my neighbourhood, and yes, I do think more of the brands that make an effort to engage on that level. And, most importantly for potential advertisers, I have a decent disposable income to spend on products and services.
If you’re an advertiser, am I not the kind of potential customer you are looking for? If so, it might be time to stop seeing community media as the nerdy kid who never gets picked for sports, and start investing in a powerful advertising platform.
Tags: No tags added
by Darren Gilbert
on 09 February 2012
It is difficult to pinpoint the exact consequences of the Protection of State Information Bill, but we know they won’t be good. According to Jonathan Ancer, not even government knows all of them, although it has spoken of what will happen to journalists if they breach the proposed rules. Members of the media are just as unsure of the consequences. But it provides a chance. Ancer believes that opening is self-regulation. Popular debate would agree with the need for greater self-regulation; the media needs to shape up. But how?
For Ancer, it comes down to media houses strengthening themselves from the inside out. One such way of doing so, as he points out, is to invest in training. “[All] media houses need to see it as their responsibility to invest in skills [in order] to produce journalists that are fair and ethical and understand what it means to produce a balanced story.” It is the opposite of this, the publishing of questionable, unethical stories, which has given the media its ‘bad’ reputation.
Lapses in ethical judgment and poor decision-making has given government unnecessary footholds to use in its justification for the implementation of the secrecy Bill. There should be no justifications for it, period.
Fortunately, the media has begun to talk about self-regulation. It’s not a bad thing and it never will be. It will lead to editors and journalists spending more time deciding whether or not to publish a piece. It can lead to better informed pieces where quality is not usurped by a tight deadline. At times, the media can be its own worst enemy but self-regulation provides the opportunity for a healthier environment and improved reputation.
As Julie Reid points out in my article, if the media fails to begin this process of self-regulation, the alternative is a government-led one. That will eventually lead to what she terms ‘self-censorship’, a consequence of the ingrained fear of being arrested. It’s also the worst form of censorship.
While the secrecy Bill is still under debate, with the introduction of media self-regulation, maybe, just maybe, government will see that it is serious about shaping up. Hopefully then, the consequences won’t all be negative.
by Leigh Andrews
on 01 February 2012
In this week’s editorial desk article, I wrote about the fact that the credibility of figures regarding readership, circulation and ad sales are often brought into question, yes this is often the basis for media planners making a decision to choose a certain publication, station or programme over another.
Added to this, a good two-and-a-half years ago, I blogged about the value of AVE in the PR industry, stating that it’s still used as proof of ROI, even when multipliers are used to reach the figure. Despite this, it is treated as the industry standard. After all, we tend to believe everything we read. There’s so much information bombarding us on a daily basis that we really need to remind ourselves to remain critical thinkers and to not believe everything that is presented to us at face value.
We turn to the Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABCs) for circulation and readership figures, and SAARF’s Radio Audience Measurement Survey (RAMS), Television Audience Measurement Survey (TAMS) and All Media and Products Survey (AMPS) for the broadcast industry. But there’s more to it than just accepting a figure, slotting it into a system and deciding ‘this is our best option’. ADS24’s CEO, Linda Gibson, recommends that advertisers looking to get more bang for their buck should also look at various sales statistics when choosing the best print space: instead of just concentrating on ‘total circulation’, also look at core circulation figures, which include “the total number of subscriptions, copy sales and digital editions minus third-party bulk and ‘print media in education’ sales.”
So there you have it – the figures are out there, the methods are treated as industry standards ... but do you trust them? Do you look for more than what is presented and accepted as ‘fact’? Share your thoughts below.
by Darren Gilbert
on 01 February 2012
For all the talk about PR and what it can achieve, Lange 360 managing director, Ruth Golembo still believes that the industry suffers from a bad image. For her, there is a misunderstanding when it comes to what effective and strategic PR is all about. “Many clients come to us and say they want free publicity.” But of course, that is not how PR works. You need to have something that is worth saying first. She has already emphasised in my article that PR is not about spin. But what else? Here is her take on what PR is not.
“PR is not a press release.” This is a general problem when it comes to PR, Golembo believes. It is often equated to the distribution of the press release and while that might be an honest misunderstanding, it needs to be rectified. Instead, PR needs to be looked at like this: it includes press releases, yes, but it’s about much more than that. As she states in my article, PR is about creating trust around a brand and maintaining a reputation through a variety of channels.
“PR is not necessarily cheap.” Golembo likes to point to the anecdote of clients seeking out PR when they don’t have enough money for an advertising campaign. It’s a disappointing view of how seriously companies really take PR. To be fair, she did admit to it being more cost-effective in terms of building a reputation, but that doesn’t mean it is cheap. If you want PR to be effective, you need to treat it with respect. It’s not just a fun add-on to your advertising or marketing campaign.
“PR is not about asking the client how high to jump.” When it comes to a strategic level of communication, Golembo believes asking such a question of your client when they tell you to jump is just not worth it. “Unless I understand why I am jumping, find someone else to do it for you.” That may seem a harsh statement but it needs to be said. It also circles back to the introduction: have something worth saying first so that when you do go the PR route, you don’t waste your money.
There are other things that PR is not. It’s not free advertising, mere written communication, marketing fluff or balloons and parties. It is instead about providing people with credible reasons to believe in your brand.
