Know your audience and speak their language

by Johanna Mavhungu


Case Studies of Sustainable Media Business Models: Kameme FM from Kenya and the Al-Ahram Media Group presented to the AMLC delegates what makes their media organisations sustainable. Kanja Waruru, Group Marketing Director, kick started with facts and figures provided by Steadman research now Synovate Group,on media in Kenya.


One of the commonalities between the two cases was that they understood their audiences, but used two different methods to keep in touch with them. Kameme uses research and niche programming to ensure that audiences interact via phone-ins and book clubs – listeners conduct book reviews. While Al-Ahram has a citizen journalism programme funded by the International Centre for Journalists (ICJ).

Another side of the press freedom crisis

by Sibonelo Radebe

Had it not been for the clumsy intervention of the ANC and the baggage that comes with being an African liberation movement-turned ruling party, we could be writing a different story around the prevailing press freedom crisis in South Africa.

The alternative story emerges from a successive list of ‘independent’ initiatives undertaken in the past 16 years or so and designed to infuse a ‘substantive social role’ into South Africa’s news media fraternity. Successively, the country’s press community clung onto archaic and elitist ideologies of press freedom thereby working itself into a vulnerable corner. To borrow from Michel Foucault’s thinking, the press community helped to write a ‘genealogy’ of marginalised thought. This is such that the ANC’s initiative, in its clumsy and opportunistic form, fits what might be called the insurrection of subjugated knowledges”.

Granted, the cacophony of media unfriendly rhetoric emanating from the direction of the ANC and its allies is worrying. To be sure, the information protection bill and other moves of that sort play no part within “the thoughts of this piece. It is the talk of establishing a statutory media tribunal which somehow fits into a ‘genealogy’ of initiatives designed to democratise South Africa’s press. One after the other these initiatives were frustrated and went to waste. And now emerges the extreme option. It did not have to come to this.

Courtesy of a PhD study concluded in 1998 by Lesley Fordred, we can begin this genealogy in 1993. The Institute for Democratic South Africa and the Institute for Multi Party Democracy thought it wise to advice the news media fraternity about shifting social patterns and needs. They organised an Indaba of sort titled: The Symposium on Political Tolerance: The role of opinion makers and the media. The idea was to sensitise news reporting to new imperatives including voter education and political violence. It is safe to conclude that the initiative flopped at the hands of a fraternity hell bent on setting up a ‘folk stat’.

A representative of the South African Union of Journalists (SAUJ) expressed discomfort with the framing of the symposium. The argument was that journalists should focus on ‘facts’ and ‘facts’ alone. Not even a need to “foster political tolerance and a democratic political culture” should come in the way of facts. In this talk lies the naked claim of the modern news media to be a science of sort which delegitimizes ‘common sensical’ voices. The SAUJ talk claims an ‘epistemological high ground’. It says: I know the facts better than everyone else. And so the seeds that were to fit into the ‘genealogies’ of ‘antisciences’ were planted within South Africa’s media landscape.

Interestingly Fordred juxtaposes the latter chapter to Nelson Mandela’s attack on the media during the Mafikeng ANC conference in 1997. While it is the cause of this piece to put aside ANC’s polemics from the making of the country’s press freedom crisis, a portion of Nelson Mandela’s words are worth noting, more so because of the tendency to misappropriate Madiba’s political stature. Mandela is quoted saying “To protect its own privileged positions, which are a continuation of the apartheid era legacy, it [the media] does not hesitate to denounce all efforts to ensure its own transformation consistent with the objectives of a non racial democracy”.

Fordred’s characterisation of Mandela’s speech is useful. She suggests that Mandela’s speech comes with a conspiratorial thinking. But she notes that this thinking partly feeds from the media’s resistance to engage the debate about “the cultural politics of news”. This resistance, argues Fordred, pushes the ANC deeper into the conspiratorial discourse in understanding “media ailments” and in seeking solutions.

Now that the ANC is talking a tribunal language, who can deny that the gestures of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) provided another golden opportunity for South Africa’s media fraternity to carve a sustainable social pact. In 1997 the TRC did extend its investigation into the role of the media in the pre-1994 era and the legacy of that role. The response of some media leaders to that process was at best nonchalant and at worst hostile as shown by the resistance of the Newspaper Press Union, a forerunner to the current Print Media SA. The recommendations of the TRC process have been gathering dust. This may be due to positions taken by key stakeholders within the media fraternity.

Writing in 1997 Guy Berger, the head of Rhodes Journalism School, stopped short of dismissing the TRC findings that the media colluded as a collective, save for a few journalists, with the apartheid regime. “Not even the verdict of the Truth & Reconciliation Commission (TRC) can remove the ultimate burden of accountability from the individual journalist,” wrote Berger. More than making a judgement on the TRC process, Berger was driving towards the point that journalism at its ethical best and because it is placed in between competing social groups does not allow for collective collusion with any ideological agenda. If and when that happens, it is more a “cock up” than a conspiracy. This argument served to say journalists must be left to their own devices. Not even the TRC should be allowed to influence the character of newsrooms. It is not the merits of Berger’s argument that are at stake here but the character of its discourse. His argument equals the establishment of a ‘scientific standard’ around the conduct of traditional newsmedia. It begs the question raised by Michel Foucault: “What types of knowledge are you trying to disqualify when you say that you are a science”. In this case, a well meaning initiative from the direction of a harmless commission was suppressed. And so the universe of opposition against an ivory tower perched media was gathering pace.

Shortly after the TRC process concluded, the Human Rights Commission (HRC) launched in 2000 an enquiry to look at the persistence of racism within South Africa’s newsrooms. Once again, the media freaked out and clung to its ‘leave us alone’ attitude. The origins of the HRC process could not persuade the media from taking a hostile position to the inquiry. Remember that the HRC process emanated from complains filed by the Black Lawyers Association and the Association of Black Accountants of South Africa. When the media came to the party, half heartedly so, the HRC process was tainted and its recommendations went largely unheeded. These included that the media must invest resources to strengthen self regulatory mechanisms. The HRC research undertaken by Claudia Braude recommended that “... the relevant industry bodies that fund them [self regulatory mechanisms] should be encouraged to provide adequate resources in order for them to be of real rather than token service to the public”.

The press community reacted by attacking Braude’s research, her person and the legitimacy of the HRC. Post this saga, Kevin Durrheim and three co writers produced a useful ‘discourse analysis’ and concluded that the media partly employed “epistemological positioning” to discredit the HRC process. The media was essentially saying it is only us who understand the spectre of racism and when and where it occurs. Not the HRC. Not Braude. Not BLA and Abasa let alone a group of black journalists who broke rank.

In the period following the enactment of the broad based black economic empowerment act of 2003, other key industries jumped at the opportunity presented in the act to establish transformation charters. These initiatives amount to self regulation of sort. They give birth to transformation commitments negotiated by key industry stakeholders and deliver charter councils which include government, civil society and private sector. If there was any less state led non intrusive idea of infusing an element of accountability to the country’s press, it is the charter council formula. It presents a platform where all relevant stakeholders can get a sense of representation. Having swerved out of the way of the advertising and communication industries’ charter, the news media fraternity has dismissed the idea of establishing its own charter. The painful thing is, initiatives like charter councils are not of radical character. Organisations like the Black Management Forum have criticised charter formations as too lenient and an escape route out of stringent transformation. Point is, the media fraternity has been blinded by an archaic ideology of independence to an extent of missing free rides.

In view of all these relatively well-meaning initiatives, how is it that we are served with such a narrow and conspiratorial explanation of the status quo.

Sibonelo Radebe is a freelance journalist.

TV Crossroads

By Howard Thomas


Rough times

The broadcast industry has been given a reprieve. Thanks to some suspicious shenanigans, the digital terrestrial broadcast technology option adopted years ago is being “reconsidered”. The idea is to replace it with a “better technology” invented by Japan, and used by only one other country in the world, Brazil.

Of course, we have to harmonise with 14 other countries in the region, and you can expect many of the countries to be bloody-minded and oppose South Africa’s proposals just because they come from South Africa.

However, we can’t mess around for ever as the ITU is not supporting analogue after 2015.

But the reprieve is welcome. Multichoice faces its first competition ever, the SABC can only recover by 3rd quarter 2011, and the local content industry is in flutters. They could all do with a little time to adapt.

Multichoice

Multichoice has expected competition for some time, even the current new arrivals are two years late thanks to ICASA dithering around as usual. But Multichoice needn’t worry. It is two steps ahead of TopTV, and about a hundred in front of the Super5 (née Telkom).

Firstly TopTV can boast all they like about getting 70 000 subscribers on the first weekend. The point is, - what tiers have these people logged onto? If they are lower end, then the profits are low, and breakeven lurks even further away. They have nice bouquets, and with lots of gospel and religion, they will attract the 4-6 market.

Multichoice has however the advantage in local and African content. Viewership for the Africa Magic channels is good, and Mzansi I reckon will be a hit. I’ve seen one Kuli Roberts show, but I reckon that’s the format that suits Pay TV – exclusive and ever so slightly outrageous.

They have also called for proposals for more local product, and the prices they are offering is right at the bottom end. But don’t forget that M-Net was one of the first to trumpet “Fit for Purpose”, the strategy that says you only spend on production what it is worth in terms of revenue and shelf life. I also remember M-Net’s now retired Carl Fischer saying years ago, “Quality comes out of quantity”

TopTV has a long way to go. There is no way it can afford local content at this stage. It has years to go before breakeven, and the reported shambles in installation and service was bad publicity from the start.

SABC

Why so long to recovery? The SABC cannot exist with its bloated staff, and face the prospect of having to fill extra channels that will command little revenue. There is talk of trimming seven hundred. Management from Minister down to executives are at each other’s throats.

How long will it take a really rough labour consultant to do the hatchet work? You have three options: early retirement (not many of those, just a handful of whites); voluntary retrenchment with say a 3 month package. The unemployable will hardly fall for that, and there are not many media jobs going. Finally there is retrenchment. Already the unemployable have put their backs to the wall, dug in their heels, and have claws out. So, that’ll take nine months alone.

The SABC also has to fix its ad revenue strategy, which is years behind the times. Until then, it’s only alternative is to discount.

Local independent production.

There used to be about 100 production companies ranging from the giants to the one man bands. There were about 20 giants, and 80 rats and mice (or boutiques as they call themselves). Even the little guys were kept alive on alone contract a year from the SABC. That’s over now.

The SABC cannot charge prices in excess of the new market levels set by M-Net, unless they only commission short runs and one-offs. I personally know of six who have closed shops and either install security gates, or you’ll find them behind their flea market stall.

So it will be back to the 20 giants who can at least run sausage machine production lines.

Who wins?

The ad agencies and producer who sell advertiser funded programmes, that’s who. Hate them as you will, they are with us to stay.



Howard Thomas has been working in entertainment and media for 40 years. His experience with TV started from the beginning in South Africa, and he is now a media business consultant, trainer and specialist in audience psychology.

Is the iPad the saviour of Print Media?

by Aidan Prinsloo, the Newcomer

American media houses are experiencing a declining turnover as more and more people turn to free online media. According to Brad White, ICANN Director of Media Affairs and Corporate Affairs, American newspapers have made a mistake in allowing news content to go online free of charge. Now, the American readership is used to getting news content for free and is less prepared to pay for subscriptions or print media.


As a result, the hallmark of 20th century journalism – investigative journalism – is under threat. White points out that investigative journalism require more people and time than modern media companies can spare, especially now that their turnover is lower. Many journalists from White’s generation lament that they have simply become ‘data collectors’, rather than investigators.


As negative as this sounds, many people agree (among them Brad White and Matthew Buckland, creator of Memeburn.com and former head of Mail and Guardian Online) that print media is not dead. While digital media has its perks, print media still appeals to a large market. There are several reasons for this. One is that print media is still more successful as leisure media – that is, we prefer printed magazines and being able to hold and keep a hard copy of images and stories we like. White holds there is nothing like being able to read a newspaper at the breakfast table. Print media still has an aesthetic lead on digital media.


The other reason why print media is sometimes viewed as more successful than digital media is that people prefer familiar layouts. Buckland says that advertisers like to stick to familiar terrain. Even though there is a lot of innovation to be found in the technical side of information distribution, the people and businesses who access these networks are slow to change. Because the internet is still predominately textual, advertisers are loath to rely on it. If given an option, advertisers would still support print media.


However, Buckland disagrees with White. He thinks that, once advertisers have caught onto the potential of online advertising, media houses will be able to sustain themselves on advertising. This is where the iPad shows potential.


Rupert Murdoch has touted the iPad as the ‘saviour of printed media’, and while many may disagree with him, it is easy to see why he would say so. Its layout allows for visually orientated content similar to what one finds in magazines. Apart from advertisers, the iPad should also appeal to those segments of the public that prefer the aesthetic feel of magazines. Professor Mindy McAdams, of the University of Florida, describes it as a ‘beautiful French pastry’ – it’s so sensual, you just want to have it. That said, it remains to be seen if people will accept the iPad to the same extent that we have magazines. Many feel that, in an age where we tend to have one appliance with many uses, buying an iPad makes no sense when you have the iPhone on one side and the AppleMac on the other. People no longer want a range of appliances; rather, they want one with many functions.


Yet, on the other hand, the iPad shows potential as a money spinner for media houses if people buy into it. Buckland believes the main benefit of the iPad for media distributors is the financial implications. The iPad will require that applications, such as programmes for viewing magazine content, and the content itself be downloaded at a fee. One could also subscribe to magazines and television series. Sadly, this remains to be seen as there are almost no applications specific to the iPad to this date. Almost all of the apps for the iPad are modified iPod or Apple applications, says Buckland. As much potential as the iPad shows, the true test of its worth is whether or not people choose to buy it.


Listen to the audio podcasts below:



(* press F5 to Refresh on your keyboard if the video does not appear on your screen)
 
1.  The Public Obligation to Self-Inform - Brad White, ICANN
 
 

2. Is the iPad the Saviour of Print Media? Prof. Mindy McAdams comments

Disclaimer:  The above podcasts do not reflect the views of SPI.