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.

How Traditional Media Houses Can Cope in the 21st Century

By Aidan Prinsloo, the Newcomer

How do traditional media houses adapt to the digital age? The resounding consensus on this subject is that media houses need to learn how to incorporate social media. The economic recession and what Megan Knight, Senior Lecturer in International Journalism at the University of Central Lancashire, calls a self-fulfilling rumour mill are driving advertisers away from print media. This is not all too bad, if one considers that advertisers still need to rely on the media to access the public. Rather, they are slowly shifting to social media – a move that can be harnessed by media houses.
Julie Posetti, a journalism lecturer at the University of Canberra, holds that media houses need to be flexible in their approach to content. That is, they need to learn how to incorporate professional journalism with civilian journalism, social media with investigative journalism, traditional platforms with digital platforms. Online media may bring a lower turnover, but it allows for news agencies to tap directly into the needs and wants of their audiences. By doing so, news agencies can remain relevant to their target markets.

One thing news agencies will have to accept is that they can no longer tap into generalised audiences. Knight points out that, while in the 20th century families would watch, read and listen to the news together; today people are far more individualistic. Certain groups of people tend to watch certain types of news – something that has been true since the beginning of time. News agencies should accept that they now appeal to particular niches and should focus on delivering content which appeals to those niches.

Professor McAdams of the University of Florida points out that people have always wanted news, and that people have always sought out news that they find pertinent to their lives. Instead of seeing social media as a threat to investigative journalism, one should realise that it is simply a new platform for social news – something people have always been interested in.

With this in mind, Matthew Buckland, of Memeburn.com, holds that the best business model for media companies operating in both traditional and digital spheres is not the convergence model. In the convergence model, the same content is developed by the same teams for different platforms. Yet, the content and nature of digital news and the way we consume it is significantly different to that of traditional media. It would be misleading to approach the two arenas with the same expertise. Different strategies are required in each sphere for them to be successful and therefore each platform should have a separate division focussed on it.

As media houses change to accommodate these developments in the market, they should focus on preserving one of the most important aspects of 20th century journalism: investigative journalism. Posetti argues that journalists are morally obliged to expose events that people would find relevant if they knew about them. She recalls the role of journalism in bringing Apartheid down and what foreign journalism could have prevented in Rwanda. Investigative journalism takes up a very small percentage of viewing time and print space presented by news agencies, but it is undoubtedly the most valuable.

However, investigative teams cost money and take time – two resources of scant availability in a digital age. Two possible models have been suggested for sustaining investigative journalism: opening up the process to the public and public funding. In the first, Spot.us serves as model in which journalist post proposals for investigative projects online and the public votes for, and subsequently contributes towards, the projects which they feel are the most relevant. The second option is state-funded journalism such as the BBC and the SABC. Naturally, the problem of people and organisations’ agendas interfering is ever present – but when has it not been? What is required is professional and civilian journalists who are passionate about spreading relevant and truthful news, and this passion needs to be supported by the public.

Fears that we are seeing the end of journalism as it has been practiced in the past 400 years seem to be unfounded. Yes, the way news and journalism is being approached is changing, but it has always changed. Before the rise of online media, people were afraid that radio would destroy print, that television would destroy radio and so forth. Instead, with each development, we have witnessed the sustained diversification of platforms, each appealing to a slightly different market. The most successful media houses will be those that can adapt to the new landscape while realising that people’s demand for relevant and accurate news has not changed.

Listen to the audio podcasts below:
(* press F5 to Refresh on your keyboard if the video does not appear on your screen)

1. Megan Knight Illustrates the Evolution of Journalism

2.  Julie Posetti - Workable Business Models for the Next Decade

3.  Prof. Mindy McAdams - Social News as a Precondition in Journalism

The battle for budget in the digital space

By Scott Gray

2010, another year, another marketing budget, another significant year-on-year increase in the amount corporates intend on investing in digital.

As an eMarketer, this is great news for me and the agency I work for as each and every year the “battle for budget” between digital and the more traditional above-the-line mediums (predictably) sees the lion share being portioned to the ad agencies, while the virtual scraps are thrown to the budget line item that is digital/interactive/eMarketing.

The purpose of this post though is not to rant, neither is it to dwell on budgets and where they should or shouldn’t be going (I’ll save that one for another post).

In South Africa, digital as a marketing channel has a problem and I can’t help feeling a somewhat shallow sense of satisfaction about the increase in the channel’s allocated year-on-year budget.

Corporates are approaching the web with an “everyone-else-is-doing-it-so-we-better-do-something-too” attitude. Now I understand that this is somewhat of a generalisation, but when I hear companies talk about investing in digital I wonder what they really mean. Are they using the platform as an opportunity to propel their business forward, or are they using digital as nothing more than something to support their TV/print/radio campaigns. Or worse, are their digital initiatives standing alone on a brand communication island with just the 1 palm tree?

From experience on both sides of the client/agency fence, I can say with confidence that digital as a support mechanism for traditional marketing efforts, as well as digital for digital sake, is where web spend is going.

As I mentioned earlier, this post is not about ranting, it’s rather an attempt at identifying what I feel are issues holding the South African eMarketing space back from taking it up a level.

The challenges, I believe, can be broken down into 2 basic categories: Client-side skill sets, and The client/agency partnership. [...]  Read the full article by clicking on the title link.