On the one hand, like most sensible people, I want to be outraged by what seems to be a clumsy and crude approach to media control: write nice things and we will advertise; if you’re nasty, we won’t. And it’s no small potatoes either – word is that the Government ad budget is around R1bn.

On the other hand, though, there is something about media owners’ response (as quoted in the Daily Maverick) that ranckles because I think it is disingenuous.

Let me explain, using my present situation as an example. I run the Grahamstown National Arts Festival. It’s the biggest Festival in Africa, one of the five biggest in the world. And in a tiny little city in a far-flung corner of South Africa each year there are about 2500 performances over 11 days, that sell over 180 000 tickets. We’re pretty darn big, and proud of it. As we all know, though, bigger doesn’t necessarily mean better….but fortunately Grahamstown has long ago established its artistic credentials. More new work – premieres, world premieres, and cutting-edge experimental work – gets staged in Grahamstown than anywhere else in South Africa, making it a strong barometer of the state if the arts in this country and, increasingly, globally. Our Standard Bank Young Artists are a group who, each year, are inevitably on top of their game and go on to make serious ripples in the global arts pond. This is where careers are launched, trends are set and waves are made.

So, getting back to the media, one would think that any media outlet with even a passing interest in the arts would get excited about the Festival each year. Fortunately for us, and for the arts, many, possibly most, do, and we get a lot of pre-Festival coverage.  But there are some who steadfastly refuse to print a word about us, until, maybe, the Festival is staged and even then sometimes it comes wrapped in a cynical cloak or appears under tabloid headlines because of an unplanned crotch shot.

Wearing my former journalist and public service hat, I have to accept this. The media sets its own agenda. We can send out as many press releases and story tips as we like but, at the end of the day, there are editorial decisions to be made about what readers want. And they aren’t mine to make. I respect that.

If that’s where it ended, I would have no problem at all joining the outraged voices crying foul over Mr Manyi’s position. But it doesn’t.

Just last week I got a phone call from an advertising sales person at a highly respected newspaper – one which, by my reckoning, would have the arts coming out quite near the top of any survey of readers’ interests. It also happens to be one of the few newspapers which, this year, has published not a single word about the Festival. This sales person started the conversation by telling me how much the newspaper wanted to support the Festival and would be happy to publish an entire supplement on it should I buy an advert from her. She got even more excited when I hinted that some of our sponsors might be convinced to buy some space. If I was Mr Manyi I might have leapt at the offer. But I’m not and, if I am to remain true to my outrage, I should politely decline.

The logic goes something like this: A newspaper knows its readers best. It also knows and sets its own news agenda. By omitting mention of the Festival, it is making a statement: “this, in our opinion, is of no interest to our readers.” Fine. But then, dear media, don’t then come to me and say that you’re a good place for me to advertise – why would I spend some of my very limited budget advertising in a newspaper which has readers who are not interested in what I am trying to sell? “Ah”, would come the response “then you need a supplement to convince them.”

Supplements, special features and promotions are some of the ways newspapers shoot their integrity in the foot. Every time one is published a tiny piece of the brand dies inside. It matters not that it has the words “advertising feature” across the top. It only works, as the advertising team will tell you, because it sits alongside editorial and is only discernible from the editorial if the reader scratches a bit beneath the surface which, as we know, most people won’t do. It let’s the advertiser feel good that they are getting “quality editorial”; it helps the sales people reach their targets; and it let’s editors sleep at night because their integrity is intact. In reality, though, no one wins.

Advertising is about buying environments. Brands know that. Show me a friendly environment – one which is supportive of what we do, one with readers passionate about what we do and who are predisposed to coming down to Grahamstown, and I will gladly give some momentum to my ticket sales by supporting it with advertising. But show me a desert or hostile environment and I’m going to walk away. The media owner itself, through the editorial decisions it is making, is telling me that the battle is probably lost for the hearts and minds of those readers. So I’ll focus my time and resources in areas where I’m more likely to win.

Is that very different from the choice Jimmy Manyi is making?

Sure, there is one crucial difference: he is spending public money. But he also has a duty to make the right choices about how to effectively spend that money, or else those same newspapers will be all over him, and quite rightly too.

So I can’t join the anti-Manyi chorus too loudly, as much as I want to. The much-valued “Chinese wall” between advertising and editorial might exist as a way for a newspaper to feel ok about itself, but it is frequently bent, warped and shifted by both sides. Sometimes blatantly, sometimes less so.

The reaction to my column was predictable. It ranged from “well, he would say that, wouldn’t he” (I am the CEO of the National Arts Festival) to outright hostility. Sports sponsorship is big bucks, propped up by a juggernaut of mega agencies who earn large commissions from every deal, sporting codes hungry for cheques, TV channels chasing viewers and Marketing Managers ferociously protecting their decisions in case their bosses start asking uncomfortable questions. About value (why is this so much?); about return on investment (what’s in it for us?); about scale (do we really need to go this big?); about clutter (which one is our logo?); and about relevance (we’re a bank, that’s a bicep).
Recently the sporting world has begun to feel the pinch. ABSA have retracted from some of their rugby properties, SASOL have forgone the opportunity to pay for Divvie’s elocution lessons, and Standard Bank have exited their relationship with the country’s biggest soccer brands and cricket. (Disclaimer: Standard Bank are one of the sponsors of the National Arts Festival, of which I am CEO as I’ve already mentioned.)

These are all – unfortunately for the sporting codes – wise and sensible decisions for the companies involved. In Standard Bank’s case they had no option. After announcing that they had to retrench 2000 staff (always a painful choice of last resort for a company) there was no way they could justify standing up in front of the media a few months later happily announcing that they were sinking hundreds of millions into sport. There would have been a riot in the media, from customers and the unions. It was perhaps unfortunate timing as both contracts were up for renewal in the first quarter of next year, maybe if they had another year to run and things had stabilised a bit they might not have had to withdraw completely. But that sort of conjecture isn’t helpful – what’s done is done.

The challenge now facing all those brands, and the many others who are critically evaluating their investment in sport, is how to replace them cost-effectively, responsibly and trying to retain some level of brand presence in the marketplace. The answer is self-evident: Arts sponsorships. Yes, I would say that wouldn’t I? But it is an argument backed up by steady logic.

Sponsorships are, or should be, about quality customer engagement and putting your brand into the heart of an experience passionately embraced by your customers and potential customers. Once you’ve acquired the rights, activation becomes the mantra and success will be measured by how your sponsorship has grown market share. That’s Marketing 101.

Marketing 2.0 goes one step further. It requires you to use sponsorships to deepen relationships, to make your brand integral to, but not disruptive to, the experience, and to become part of the multitude of communities that crop up on social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter to amplify your investment. In short to become part of the community enjoying the experience not the obnoxious outsider brandalizing the experience at every turn.

You’ll notice that I use the word “experience” a lot, rather than “event”, “match”, “festival” or “fixture”. Smart brands understand that the experience is all.

So why does the arts offer a better experience than sport? I’m not going to begin that argument because it’s too subjective. What is backed by fact is the statement that the arts offers a more cost effective experience. To “own” a big sport can cost upward of R100m. To “own” a festival or genre can cost as little as R1m (obviously I’m picking the extremes to make a point, but that’s because the extremes are there for the picking). Value is what the market now needs. People who love sport love sport, people who love arts love arts, and some people enjoy both. Let’s not get into a schoolyard debate about whether it is better to be on the first team rugby or in the inter-house play competition. For those who take part, each is equally important. And the audiences equally valuable to a sponsor.

Advocates of sports sponsorships have a classic fall back: television. Matches are televised, exponentially increasing a brand’s reach and justifying the big ticket. If they’re going to use that argument, though, they need to frame it in the context of responsible sponsorship. They have to prove that having your logo on television deepens the relationship between brand and customer. They have to prove that stadium signage enhances the experience. They have to prove that viewers firstly notice their logo amidst all the clutter, then acknowledge the brand or product attached to it, and then act upon what they have seen. A tough ask. In my opinion, none of those are provable because they’re simply not true. They are clever tools slipped into a contract to make the cost seem more justifiable. Instead, viewers notice, talk about and repeat a simple, low-budget spot dropped in to the rugby breaks with the catchy line “Pump by die dam pump, pump, pump”. How galling for those dropping big cash to own the team, the stadium and the coveted broadcasting rights.
Corporates aren’t buying into the myth any more, as we have seen. To paraphrase Warren Buffet, it is when the tide is low that you can see who isn’t wearing a swimsuit. Right now the tide is lower than it has ever been. And the sporting world is Sandy Bay.
On the other hand there are dozens, possibly hundreds, of festivals, production houses, theatres and artists crafting life-changing experiences for South Africans every single day. And South Africans are flocking to them. Some corporates clocked this ages ago and are reaping the rewards. But there is still opportunity for more. The arts world is ripe for a big brand with plenty of experience of amplifying and activating a sponsorship to get out of the wings and onto the stage. (Scrum metaphors are so last year.) And we have nice swimsuits.

Am continually surprised at how few people have seen it – it ought to have gone instantly viral, in my view. Or maybe it did and I just didn’t notice…. I know it produced a few (inevitable and not particularly good) parodies, though.

I think they’re pretty cool – and the are releasing them under an open licence for anyone to use on their blog, website, Facebook page…wherever you have a voice. So let’s do just that – spread the word, pick the one that works for you below and use it….

Sponsorship, as we all know, is about marketing which is about business. And business is about numbers and delivering the best return on your shareholder’s investment. In this second of my two-part series, I take a look at how a tiny slice of your sports budget can make a massive impact in the arts world.
Why would any corporate spend millions to get their logo on the jersey of a sports team (a logo that might get noticed, but is considered by the consumer as adjacent to the experience, not integral to it) when they can spend a fraction of that to become part of creating an arts event, production or festival that speaks directly to the heart of the consumer?

Doesn’t add up

It doesn’t add up, which is why extravagant sport sponsorships are barely tolerated in today’s consumer-conscious media.

Part of the blame, it must be said, lies at the feet of the arts community itself. For years it has been battered into a position where it apologises for the sponsorship it seeks. And for the same period of time it has singularly failed to recognise why corporates sponsor anything – not to feel good about themselves (although the pictures do liven up an annual report) but rather to drive sales.

It’s that simple.

And too few of those who seek sponsorship for their arts projects are prepared to recognise that and partner with corporates to help them reach their objectives.

Artists sometimes act as if marketing is a dirty word that will somehow tarnish their credibility. By the same token, sponsors make a hash of it when they get on the wrong side of the experience. As an audience is enjoying a moment of magic, the last thing they want is an intrusion or interruption. But they will respond warmly to a sponsor who brands an event with integrity, saying “Enjoy that? We did too, and we’re glad we could make it possible.”

Secret sauce

That “being on the same side of the experience” is the secret sauce that makes the difference between an effective arts sponsorship and an intrusive one. Some SA corporates have gotten it right – witness Cell C’s inner city art projects, Old Mutual’s customised once-in-a-lifetime music events, and Exclusive Book’s Homebru.

Others, which I won’t go into here, have gotten it wrong, being the sponsorship world’s equivalent of your daughter’s brash boyfriend arriving drunk at a christening in a Bokke beanie. The difference is mature, intelligent activation that earns consumer respect, not disdain.

In part oneI established that the arts market is uncluttered and ripe for the sponsorship picking. If it weren’t already self-evident, let’s unpack the economics of the debate.

To put your company logo on the jersey of a top football club in South Africa will probably (conservatively) cost you R50 million over a couple of years. Then you need to activate the sponsorship and shout about it, which doubles the bill.

The question, then, is this. What could R100 million get you in the arts, and is it better than putting your logo on the jersey of a soccer team?

Own outright

The secret is that, for the cost of the hypothetical football team, you could own outright most, if not all, of the biggest arts events in South Africa, including the National Arts Festival in Grahamstown; KKNK in Oudtshoorn; Aardklop in Potchefstroom; Johannesburg’s Dance Umbrella and the Cape Town International Jazz Festival .

And you would still have some change.

Then, with some smart (not expensive) activation around the event, you could find ways of touching and engaging hundreds of thousands of consumers. All of that, or your logo on a soccer jersey or golf shirt which may or may not get noticed by the fans?

Given that equation, I’m surprised that more financial directors aren’t pushing their marketing directors out the door to brush up on the arts.

Before I get bullied in the playground next time I go to a marketing gathering, let me state clearly and unequivocally that there is a place for sports sponsorship in the marketing mix. Clever brands – such as Standard Bank – have known this for years.

Standard Bank realises that a well-rounded portfolio of sponsorships isn’t just about cutting across a multitude of sporting codes and getting its logo on television, but rather about finding opportunities to touch South Africans whatever their passion, be it cricket, soccer, jazz or theatre. That’s a mature mix, a powerful mix, and one that pays off for it in survey after survey and which puts it at the top of the leaderboard of iconic SA brands.

Magic thread

Another fine example of creating that magic thread between event and spectator is Vodacom’s inspired “official supporter of South African supporters” campaign. In an instant, with a single clever line, it achieves that sense of “we’re on the same side here”.

When you strike gold in the arts world, the rewards are exponentially huge relative to the cost. You become a stand-out brand in a focused, usually educated and probably affluent market. And, because it comes at a relatively lower cost, you can take a few more risks. You can spend on the “safe bets” – the big festivals and the big productions – and throw in a couple of gambles knowing that some of them will pay off – a production here, a tour there, wrapping your marketing spend up in a CSI cloak as you give a leg up to some of the hundreds of community groups who know how the arts can help them restore their dignity and pride, but don’t have the resources to make it happen.

You can do all of that and not come close to the cost of that single soccer jersey.

And because you’re spending carefully and astutely on something that virtually everyone agrees is vital to nation building and identity, chances are you’ll keep your CEO off the front page of the papers…

At a fraction of the price of sport, and with potentially the same (if not greater) ability to move the jaded, brand-exhausted consumer along a “purchase now” trajectory, sponsoring the arts has become the smart marketers’ godsend.

Ripe for the picking

Right now there are hundreds of arts projects ripe for the picking. They range from multi-discipline festivals (the big safe bets with considerable media muscle and public support) through to startup events with huge potential; theatre companies who perform 365 days a year in venues around the country; community theatre groups trying to make a go of it; individual productions that will help you dip a big toe into the arts space; and a multitude of music, jazz and other focused festivals that attract hundreds of thousands of your customers.

No SA brand serious about its future relevance can afford to leave the arts out of the mix. No SA brand serious about delivering shareholder value cannot seriously reconsider its spend on sport. And there are no excuses not to enter this, the most uncluttered of marketing spaces still available.

It is the most cost-effective marketing vehicle in tough economic times. It has the added benefit of not only being the most powerful weapon in a marketing toolbox, but of doing good at the same time. All compelling reasons to get on the bandwagon.

As the global economic meltdown gains pace, it seems that the once-sacrosanct realm of sports sponsorship is starting to feel the pinch. So why is sponsoring the arts right now the smartest thing a brand can do?
Recently insurance giant AIG announced that it was not going to be renewing its U$75 million sponsorship of one of the world’s most successful and lucrative sporting brands, Manchester United, when the current contract ends in 2010. Formula 1 is shedding sponsors and tennis player Andy Murray, longtime beneficiary of a sponsorship from troubled bank RBS, has offered to reduce his current deal with them.

Closer to home

Closer to home, South African Airways signed a deal with golfer Angel Cabrera worth US$3 million just after announcing a series of internal cost-cutting measures, resulting in headlines and woes for its subsequently suspended CEO, Khaya Ngqula.

As the downturn slides off the news headlines and onto corporate balance sheets, it is becoming harder and harder for companies to justify to their shareholders the massive costs of “owning” sports events. A massive industry is at stake.

How big? According to BMI on behalf of Business and Arts South Africa, the numbers are staggering. In 2006 South African corporates spent R2.6 billion on sports sponsorships. The Department of Trade and Industry (dti) thinks that figure has now crept up to R3.5 billion. A similar amount is spent on leveraging those sponsorships, so assume that the industry is worth somewhere around R7 billion a year.

Teams, sporting codes and individuals used to commanding massive endorsement deals, and media owners, who benefit from the leverage behind it, are having to adjust their expectations as CEOs and financial directors begin to ask tough questions about the value to their shareholders of that mammoth spend on sport sponsorships.

Still have a job to do

But brand marketers still have a job to do and, perhaps more than ever, are looking for ways to reach through the fog of gloom to their customers and reassure them that, no matter what the state of the global economy, their favourite brand is still there for them.

Which is why the arts, an uncluttered and the biggest untapped value for money market, is poised to take over from sport.

But many sponsorship directors and their highly paid consultants still have a notion that sponsorship is about putting your logo onto something moving, preferably in front of a TV camera. It’s not. And that’s why they’ll miss the boat. They’ll also think that the way to get value from a sponsorship is to throw money at something big and to name it after their brand.

That’s lazy, clumsy marketing and, frankly, both intrusive and forgettable. New marketers, however, get the essence – sponsorship is about engaging with your customers and potential customers in a space they feel passionately about. And it’s not just about piggy-backing on the passion, but rather about becoming integral to their experience of it.

Once sponsors have gotten that right, and only then, can they legitimately embed their product and message into that experience, and begin reaping the benefits.

Head start

It’s true that if you’re talking about passions in a South African sense, sport has a head start on the arts. At least it is true on the face of it. Delve a little deeper into the traditions and customs of South Africans and you’ll quickly see that while spectator sport is a diversion and a hobby about which people feel strongly, the arts is more fundamental to the fabric of who we are.

Story-telling, dance, poetry, and music is the way we have shared our experiences over the years, and the way millions of youngsters shape their identity and learn their heritage. It’s isn’t surprising that one of the fastest growing pasttimes in South Africa isn’t soccer, rugby or road-running. It is performance poetry – edgy, creative, bold and full of attitude, today’s poets are the leading voices of a generation who are taking control of their own destinies.

Creativity equals authenticity. The experience of being part of creative expression – as performer or audience or that joyous middle where the lines blur – provides an entry to the heart of South Africans that too few of our brands recognise. A staggering 43% of adult South Africans maintain that they feel more positively toward a company that sponsors the arts, according to BMI. That’s a significant amount of untapped goodwill in the marketplace.

At the world’s leading annual sponsorship conference hosted by IEG in Chicago, trends are detected a couple of years before they become apparent. In 2007, the conference repeated a mantra that is only now, in the context of the credit crunch, beginning to make sense. “The next big thing,” IEG said, “is a million little things.”

Fragment

In other words, as consumers fragment themselves into smaller and smaller communities, become more inward looking and respond only to those things that have a direct impact on their lives, marketers need to avoid the “one size fits all, big bang” sponsorship that shouts loudly but speaks to no-one. Instead of the shotgun, a carefully aimed rifle is needed.

Consumers have changed over the years. Today they cynically reject the notion that big brands are better simply because they are big brands. Seeing your logo plastered around a sports ground doesn’t make anyone rush out to try what you’re selling for the first time, and in a stadium environment there are few opportunities to engage and “close the deal”.

Advocates of the shotgun-style of wallpapering a stadium or team argue that it is about getting your brand out there. In the ’90s, when “brand awareness” was the buzzword that would have been a sensible strategy. Today, “brand awareness” doesn’t necessarily translate into “brand consumption” or even “goodwill toward brand”.

In fact, given the rising cynicism of consumers and the economic climate, a show-offy big bang approach to sponsorship is just as likely to backfire and cause resentment among consumers.

Want to belong

More than ever consumers want to belong (witness the rise of social media – Twitter, YouTube, Facebook – they’re all enablers of one-to-one communication and building micro communities), consumers want to care and think deeply about the world around them and relate to leaders who don’t patronise them (Barrack Obama). They crave authenticity, community and the human touch in a world where they are increasingly alienated from the economy, politicians and their neighbours.

And where are they more likely to find those authentic, genuine connections – as one of 70 000 people at Newlands, or in a quiet, darkened theatre experiencing an intimate, goose bump-inducing moment of magic?

In part two, I’ll take a look at how a tiny slice of your sports budget can make a massive impact in the arts world.

When the decision to print the paper was made, returns from the US election were coming in very slowly and time was running out before the deadline for the edition. The Tribune staff, based on the early returns, decided Dewey would be the next President. After the newspaper was delivered to the street, more returns came in and showed that Truman would be the ultimate winner and be re-elected as President. The already delivered “error” newspapers were gathered for return by staff members sent out to pick them up from newsstands and homes in the Chicago area. Not all were collected, however, and the photo of the victorious President Truman holding the paper aloft has become iconic.

While clearly no-where near as disastrous as that, I was amused this morning to find that the Weekender newspaper dated 25 April 2009 has made a similar mistake by “calling” the results of the Western Cape poll prematurely.

“DA resports to coalition for control of the Cape” says the headline, and the story goes on to say:
“Intense negotiations between political parties in the Western Cape are on the cards as they try to forge coalitions of sufficient strength to take control of the province. The horse-trading will be necessary because of the Democratic Alliance’s failure to win an outright majority in the province…”

Hmmm. Ooops. With 51.33% of the vote in her handbag, Ms Zille is now to be Premier of the Western Cape, regardless of what coalition she manages to forge. Of course she may still decide to enter into an alliance with other parties, but the point is she doesn’t have to. She has won.

I’m surprised the Weekender got it so wrong. As a Cape Town resident I have been watching the results closely for the past 36 hours. And for most of them the party hasn’t dipped below 50% at all and, when it did, it was only for a short while. If they wanted to err on the side of caution they should have printed the opposite story “Majority seems likely for the DA” would have been a more accurate, safer and, as it turned out, correct headline.

Just shows the perils of Old Media who should, in an age where there is instant news all around us, capitalise on their one biggest strength – offer great insight and detailed analysis. In a rolling news environment when a story is still live when you go to print, don’t take any chances because it gives new media pundits the chance to ridicule you and tweak your nose. Tweak tweak.

Today I’ve been working with the TV on, occasionally popping through to the lounge to see how things are progressing. While at my PC I’ve been checking a couple of websites regularly and in my car a couple of times I’ve listened to some radio news broadcasts.

All in all I have been disappointed with the way the media have handled the results release. Sure we all knew the ANC was going to win – but the other critical factors in the elections (that 2/3 majority everyone is obsessing about; the fate of the Western Cape; the overall impact of COPE; the final death throes of so many tiny parties) are all things that interest me. Having recently watched the unfolding American elections on CNN, Sky and BBC as well as online I had a fair idea of what worked for me, and had fairly high expectations that South Africa’s media would rise to the challenge.

Online was a major disappointment. IOL simply pulled their election stories into a single section of their website, but didn’t offer anything extra. Same too for the M&G (except for their, as always, ahem, exceptionally produced podcast, obviously). EWN.co.za (the online version of 702 and Cape Talk’s news) tried valiantly but have been let down by poor design that makes them look static, wordy and boring. Stick to radio guys, or call in the online experts to build the site for you. The online publication that seemed to “get” the potential of the web was The Times. A great online election section, and by pulling together news, multimedia, blogs, social media and community votes in one place, they managed to position themselves as “the only place you need to go” for election coverage – presumably the Holy Grail of the day.

The coolest feature I found online was News24′s interactive map, updated frequently throughout the day with the numbers. Easy to use and pretty effective, it became my default “numbers machine” during the day. But then it let me down. Right now it is 7:45pm, the last time the site was updated was 5:52pm. As a breaking news story with constantly shifting numbers, that just isn’t good enough, and News24 has squandered a massive opportunity. It also meant that my irritation levels were such that I can’t name them the best election site of the day despite the fact that the rest of their site was on a par with The Times – so I’ll give the Golden Lankester award (catchy, I might trademark it like that Oscar guy did) to The Times.

(And just in case Matt gives me a hard time about my News24 comments – here’s the screengrab to prove it.)

If News24 let a great opportunity slip through their fingered, the SABC didn’t even get their hands to the ball. This morning I switched the TV on around 10am wanting to get rolling results. The SABC was treating its viewers to a heady mix of Learning Channel, soapie repeats and Takalani Sesame. So much for the National Broadcaster. Fortunately the eNews channel could come to the rescue – not only on its dedicated channel but simulcast on its regular channel during the day.

The e presenters are generally pretty good. Today was the first time I’ve seen Dan Moyane on the channel. Dan is one of the nicest, most genuine and brightest guys in broadcasting, and I’ve always enjoyed him on both 702 and SAfm. But today he looked slightly uncomfortable. The peculiar seating arrangement didn’t help and at times he looked more like Debra Patta’s bodyguard than anything else.

The e coverage remained of a fairly high standard but the quality of their graphics left much to be desired. I wanted pie charts and graphs, a vote-o-meter on the left hand side of the screen throughout updating the latest figures, even when they felt it necessary to talk about weather or sport. Instead we got an occasional hard to read bar graph that didn’t offer much insight. And they perpetuated their ridiculous “have the presenters stand around” philosophy throughout, even when Jeremy and Redi came on and the difference in their height was ridiculously accentuated.

So back to the SABC it was and having dispatched the crappy daytime television and woken up to the fact thar there was in fact an election unfolding, Tim Modise appeared calm and in charge, as he always does. Even when breathless and largely amateurish field reporters went live to report on the fact that there wasn’t very much to report on. The SABC’s graphics were better than eTV’s – more readable and more useful.

Radio-wise I don’t have much to comment on because all I had to listen to was SAfm and Cape Talk. Both seemed to do ok, but as always the slickness of Cape Talk’s news operation and the intelligence and quality of their reporters put them head and shoulders above the rest.

My 2c worth – a rather incomplete overview of the media, I’m afraid, but some of us have a real job that needs to occupy some of our attention!

That’s how I feel now. Please read this statement issued today by the ANC Youth League. Cut and pasted, with no additions or deletions from me. Yet.

ANC YL instructs Nandos to promptly withdraw their disgusting advertisements.
The African National Congress Youth League calls for the immediate withdrawal of the disgusting Nandos television and radio advertisements which uses cheap satire to undermine electoral politics in South Africa. Whatever is the lousy explanation of the Nandos advertisement, the ANC YL is fully aware that the advertisement is intended at mocking the President of the ANC YL, and in a racist fashion portrays political leaders as Cartoons.

The ANC YL has commissioned our Lawyers to investigate the legal issues that could arise around the whole advertisement, and they will soon advise us on action. While awaiting the legal advice, the ANC YL instructs the Nandos Company and those who did the advertisement to promptly withdraw the advert from all television screens and radio channels. If Nandos does not withdraw the adverts, the ANC YL will mobilise the people of South Africa to take militant action against Nandos and anything associated with Nandos.

Oh where to start???? Other bloggers like Matt Buckland have had their say on the ad and I am largely in agreement that it is average at best. If you haven’t yet seen it, do yourself a favour and view it now.

Let’s now go through this little gem of a press statement piece by piece

ANC YL instructs Nandos to promptly withdraw their disgusting advertisements.

The African National Congress Youth League calls for the immediate withdrawal of the disgusting Nandos television and radio advertisements which uses cheap satire to undermine electoral politics in South Africa.

OK we’ll ignore the contorted grammar/confused singularisation of “uses”. I love the fact that the ANC YL genuinely believe that they have the right to “instruct” anyone to do anything. When did they become so powerful? And they’ve missed the point – the ad in question does use satire, but not to “undermine electoral politics in South Africa”. It uses satire to illustrate what a complete and utter buffoon Julius Malema is. On the one hand the nation’s joker laughably sets himself up as the party’s “decoy”, providing political cover for his masters to continue their race to the Union Buildings unhindered. In so doing he is happy to verbally harangue and demean whoever comes across his path without a hint of decorum or dignity. On the other, he gets cross when a puppet makes him look, well, like the blustering buffoon that he is.

Whatever is the lousy explanation of the Nandos advertisement, the ANC YL is fully aware that the advertisement is intended at mocking the President of the ANC YL…

Again, some fearless mangling of the English language and distortion of logic. But isn’t it great that they feel compelled to articulate how aware they are of the purpose of the ad. “You can’t pull the wool over our eyes…we know you’re taking the piss” they assert. Well….duh. Well spotted guys. If you didn’t get that the ad was intended to mock Mr Malema then you really would be in serious trouble. Well done on getting the joke.

…and in a racist fashion portrays political leaders as Cartoons.

I enjoyed the random use of capitals here. It makes the word stand out – again in a “we spotted that this wasn’t really our beloved President” kind of way. But hang on a second, let’s take another look at the ad – it wasn’t a Cartoon or even a cartoon. It was, in fact, a puppet. Or, more accurately, a ventriloquist’s doll. The person standing next to it pretending to be the operator was a clue. But what I’m missing here is this: The sentence construction might be at fault here but it seems to say that portraying a political leader as a Cartoon (puppet) is a racist action. I’m sorry? I’m just not getting it.

The ANC YL has commissioned our Lawyers to investigate the legal issues that could arise around the whole advertisement, and they will soon advise us on action. While awaiting the legal advice, the ANC YL instructs the Nandos Company and those who did the advertisement to promptly withdraw the advert from all television screens and radio channels.

Let’s put this another way: We phoned our Lawyers (like Cartoons, deserving of a capital. Quite right too. ) and told them we were unhappy. They are presently locked in the law library desperately trying to find some justification for legal action. But whether or not they find anything, we still want you to pull the advertisement. No, scratch that, we don’t want you to…we are instructing you to. We’re hurt and feel betrayed by Nandos and we’re going to put the word “Company” after their name, again with a capital, just to show how serious we can be. And at the same time we are going to enjoin those who “did” the advertisement just for good measure. Note that advertisements are “done” these days, not made or produced or created. Done.

If Nandos does not withdraw the adverts, the ANC YL will mobilise the people of South Africa to take militant action against Nandos and anything associated with Nandos.

This is my favourite bit. Not only are we so overwhelmingly pissed off with Nandos, but we are convinced that the “people of South Africa” agree and will join our “militant action”. But wait – there’s more. Not only are we going to take this action against Nandos, but “anything associated with Nandos”. Anything? Anything at all? Just to help the ANC YL here is a list of things “associated with Nandos” that they need to make sure to include in their action:

• Chicken (obviously)
• Peri Peri (ditto)
• Mozambique (their map is on every wall in every branch)
• Chicken livers (from the Starter menu)
• China (who make the toys that come in the kiddies packs)
• Mealies, mealie farmers and all people everywhere who sell, eat or look at mealies (including the lady in the Madam & Eve Cartoon…yet again clearly racist and the ANC YL’s next target)
• Wet wipes (who do a roaring trade when people eat Nandos in their cars)
• The Nandos branch in London
• The Lusitoland Festival and, by extension, everyone living in the South of Johannesburg
• Potato Wedges, potato farmers and people who look like potatoes
• Me (because I had Nandos for dinner tonight)

There’s more, obviously, but let’s not get picky. To battle people. Our leader’s dignity has been attacked. Not by him (this time) but by those cocky people who did the advertisement. At last, something meaty to complain about.

Look, on a serious note, the ad is lame. Not up to Nandos’ usually high standard. It plays to stereotypes, isn’t particularly well acted and lacks a fiery punchline. But deserving of militant action? Hardly. If Julius Malema ever wants to be taken seriously as a politican, it is time he grew up. Seriously. Or else he will continue to be the national joke, the laughing stock of all and a continued source of shame to millions of intelligent and rational ANC members. And he will, therefore, never be a serious contender for high office. But at least there will be lots of laughs on the way.