Is Manyi being dishonest, or practical?
In the great Jimmy Manyi vs the Media debate, I find myself conflicted.
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.
Short URL: http://www.tonylankester.com/?p=651
Posted by tony
on Jun 13 2011. Filed under General Thoughts, Marketing.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
