by Leigh Andrews
on 10 May 2012
In this week’s editorial desk article, I wrote that the shift toward digital in the print media landscape is having an effect on the advertising industry, as popularity of the medium affects the method of spreading messages. I’ve also written before that the media and marketing industries are intrinsically linked and that people new to it shouldn’t see digital as the ‘saviour’. While it is definitely the way forward, consensus seems to be that it shouldn’t be tackled in isolation as traditional mediums are definitely still effective ways of spreading messages and raising awareness.
We’re keen to hear your thoughts – as consumers and marketers alike. Please share them below.
by Samantha Cook
on 08 May 2012
The SABC is currently in a sorry state of affairs. Between the instability in its upper management ranks and unfortunate rulings from the BCCSA following its very public tussle with the Mail & Guardian, the state-owned broadcaster is undoubtedly feeling sorry for itself.
But added to these troubles (and in fact, at the heart of the M&G feud) is its seeming inability to disassociate itself from the interests of the government – i.e. the ANC – to the point where the SABC is sometimes referred to as a propaganda machine of sorts, only spewing forth the information that the ruling party deems suitable to be heard by the public.
From a South African citizen’s perspective, this is unacceptable – censorship by any other name, if you will. However, from a journalist’s perspective, I find myself asking if it isn’t simply a pipe dream that the SABC be totally objective.
Yes, it would be the ideal scenario, but given the fact that so much of the SABC’s essence is historically linked to government, it seems unlikely that the company culture would be able to achieve such an about-turn. Because, when it comes down to it, company culture dictates the behaviour of an organisation. For publications like the Sunday Times and the Mail & Guardian, this is almost a non-issue, given the fact that they are owned by media houses, but for the SABC, it is quite likely that its loyalty is split between its mandate to inform its audience, and the people that pay the bills.
What do you think? Do you believe it is possible for objectivity to actually exist (and thrive) in this kind of environment?
Tags: No tags added
by Melanie Heyns
on 23 April 2012
When it comes to drinking and driving, I have one rule: If you’re going to drive, you’re not going to drink, simple as that. I have seen and heard of too many accidents which have been caused by someone who has been drinking and driving.
When I read about Brandhouse’s Responsible Drinking campaign and Responsible Drinking Media Awards, as well as SAB’s NoregretFridays campaign, I thought they were brilliant initiatives. A friend of mine was driving home late one evening and got to a traffic light (which was green for him). When he was about halfway through the intersection, another car came out of nowhere and collided with him. Thankfully my friend was not critically injured, but it was clear to him when the other driver stumbled out of his car, that he had been drinking. The other driver simply whipped out his phone, called a friend to come fetch him, proceeded to phone his towing company and then bolted once his friend arrived (obviously too scared of getting caught). Thankfully my friend was able to get the driver’s insurance information from the towing company. He was able to get the damage paid for and all ended well.
There are some people who are, of course, not as fortunate as my friend; people have died due to drunk drivers, skipping traffic lights and colliding into them. I don’t understand how people can be so careless. It is one thing that still boggles my mind. With the state of our prisons and police and metro cops taking the ruthless approach, why would you still want to be as reckless and take the risk of drinking and driving? How can someone be as careless and selfish as to drink and drive? Don’t they realise the potential damage they can cause?
Leave your comments below.
by Darren Gilbert
on 19 April 2012
“When someone reads or sees a Public Service Announcement (PSA), they need to have this feeling of peer-to-peer conversation,” says Lowe and Partners SA CEO, Wayne Naidoo. “People [also] need to be charmed”. I mentioned two examples of this in my Editorial desk article this week. The one, for Rosebank Homeless Shelter, pulled at the heartstrings while the other – for the Association of Responsible Alcohol Use (ARA) – was the equivalent of a strong cuff to the head. Both were deserved winners of M-Net TAG Awards because they made people sit up and take notice.
When I began conducting research for the article, the first PSA that I thought of was one titled ‘Selinah’. Created in 2010 by Ogilvy Johannesburg for The Topsy Foundation, it’s one of the most harrowing things to watch – a series of stop-motion images showing the deterioration of an HIV-positive woman over three months. However, as traumatic as it may appear (Once you’ve seen it you’ll never forget it), it sets the scene for what The Topsy Foundation needs - donations to fight Aids.
However, they couldn’t simply say, “Here, please donate. We need money to fight Aids.” Every organisation wants money and as much as you might like to, you simply can’t donate to everyone. That is why with PSAs, more emphasis should be placed on showing the problem than telling the audience what to do. While this ‘show, don’t tell’ principle is used largely in writing, I believe it can also be applied to PSAs. In showing your audience the problem, it is easier to persuade them to donate money, change their attitude or simply think more deeply about an issue.
Another way of putting it is to soft-sell to your audience in a hard-hitting way. Taking the issue of Aids as an example, it’s one that can never been candy-coated, so you need to confront the truth about the disease: it kills. However, that doesn’t mean you need to bash people over the head with the message. As I wrote in my piece, PSAs are selling a tangible offering in an emotional way. It’s coupling a hard-hitting reality with a soft-selling (emotional) technique.
You want people to donate and change their attitude, not hesitate as yet another organisation’s attempts to part them with their money or waste their time. Can you think of any PSAs that are really hitting this mark? Leave your comments below.
by Samantha Cook
on 11 April 2012
Lots of people were incredibly upset when 5FM stalwart Sasha Martinengo announced that he wouldn’t be continuing with the station past the end of March. Twitter was in an uproar, fans proclaimed their undying loyalty, and many even vowed to switch their regular 5FM listening to his new show on internet radio station Ballz Radio. Similarly, there was a massive outcry when the announcement was made that other popular shows across different stations (including Highveld Stereo's afternoon drive with Mark Pilgrim and Bailey Schneider, and 5FM's 'Grant and Anele' slot).
Clearly, lots of people were upset – but not me. I’m a big supporter of change, and particularly in an industry that prides itself on its immediacy and relevance, unfortunately the same needs to be applied to the human element of radio. Just like a favourite uncle or grandparent, their presence is comforting and familiar, and something you are used to as part of your daily routine. But does that mean that they can still provide fresh and fun conversation that keeps you entertained as well as informed? Highly unlikely.
So yes, while I do acknowledge that Sasha Martinengo is an excellent broadcast professional (and all-round good guy), I’m not going to shed tears of despair because he won’t be around every day from 9:00 to 12:00 any more. The radio industry, competing with dozens of other forms of entertainment, can’t afford to get stale, and particularly in the competitive music radio market, a decrease in listener loyalty means that a bored listener is very soon a lost listener.
Maybe its because I am personally situated within the target market for these stations, but I see far more benefits to a fresh (and young) line-up than there are disadvantages. Yes, they may lose the few rare hyper-loyal fans, but on the flipside, a new line-up also offer enormous potential to gain new listeners.
What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comment section below.
