Media landscape

1. The age of intolerance

   Published on Tuesday, August 17th, 2010

   I fear that the recession might have accelerated the age of intolerance and ultra conservatism to risk.

   Is our new-found enthusiasm for saving versus spending, the resignation of the CEO of HP, and the decision of the Christchurch councillor to quit at the next election over a sandcastle spat symptom of this, or the disease itself?

   We seem to be in a time when how things look is more important that how things are, i.e the facts.  This is underscored by journalistic minions trolling through the café receipts of elected representatives and their officials to find an ill-gotten coffee, while the reasons for the burgeoning welfare cost go largely unexplained.

   It’s now a world where being given a bun with mould on it in a takeaway store is worthy of editorial coverage by our major newspapers

   I recall the comments of Philippa Fee at a liability seminar last year organised by Lumley: “There have been in New Zealand a sudden shift in social behaviour reflected in greater demand for accountability, less tolerance, deeper acrimony and a growing appetite for class actions. These behaviours are evident in businesses, consumers, employees and even agencies of government, and there are implications for all forms of public and professional liability. We are no longer litigation shy.”

   This was the backdrop to Philippa’s presentation on Directors & Officers insurance, and she counseled that when it comes to liability paranoia is healthy, particularly in times of economic stress.

   I hope she’s right, and as economic stress dissolves (economists-assured), these picky traits we are exhibiting are not so deeply embedded in our national character they remain permanent fixtures.

   For communicators, these times give us different opportunities to exhibit our issue management skills, so we shouldn’t complain.  It’s for Kiwis who’ve prided themselves historically on having a “fair go” attitude that I feel sorry.

   But perhaps I’m just paranoid.

   

2. There’s news and views. Is responding to an issue with an ad the way to go?

   Published on Thursday, August 5th, 2010

   Are big bold ads now the immediate way to address real or perceived injustices thought to have been perpetrated through the columns of newspaper?  On July 2, the New Zealand Herald ran a story stating that an investigation found a couple of eco-friendly laundry powders had high pH levels which could pose a health risk. One of these was an Ecostore product.  The very next day Ecostore ran a full page ad in the NZ Herald claiming, There’s no Dirt on our Laundry Powder.

   Advertising your side of the story in response to editorial coverage is not new, but until now it has normally been used when a publication has refused to run a ‘correction’ or adequately covered your side of the story.

   Basically Ecostore ‘s response was: yes we did have some laundry powder that was found in May to register a high pH level, but that “honest mistake” was remedied in four days. It insisted the out-of-spec powder was never unsafe, and for that reason no recall from the market was warranted, although Consumer NZ thought it should have been.

   The Newspaper Advertising Bureau thought Ecostore’s response to the Herald article was pretty cool, and awarded it “ad of the month”.  The judges commented: “The ad’s got topicality. That’s how a newspaper should be used to make a statement.”

   Putting aside the issue of how Ecostore’s agency managed to secure that much advertising space in the NZ Herald the next day (when those of us who’ve tried unsuccessfully to get recall ads placed within a couple of days), was this full page a sound strategy?

   Yes and no.  Ecostore did address the issues raised in the same paper the previous day, but not in the same medium.  And people who read news items do not always read ads, even the full page ones.

   From its point of view, Ecostore may have put the record straight. We don’t know what effort Ecostore made to redress the issues raised through the editorial columns and/or whether the NZ Herald lost interest in the issue.

   We do know Ecostore did not meet its own expectations – it made a mistake with the product specs – but they did not recall the product because it did not represent the danger alleged by Consumer NZ. When building and protecting a brand, surely product integrity is as important as disputed issues of safety.

   I’m not convinced that the ad adequately resolved the issue at hand, i.e. mistakenly high pH levels. 

   There’s news and there’s views. The ad was a view.  I’m sure Ecostore recognises that news can and does shape opinion more sustainably than views.  On this basis I would counsel an editorial response, rather than an advertising one.

   And there is also the issue of whether a precedent has been set where newspapers might deny a person the right of reply on the basis that they can ‘take out an ad if they want to correct the content or tone of coverage’!

   

3. How you respond is a measure of your mettle

   Published on Friday, July 30th, 2010

   He didn’t get it then, and he doesn’t get it now. “Then” was when he fronted up to the affected communities, the media, and politicians over the Gulf oil spill disaster; and “he” is former BP chief Tony Hayward.

   It is almost beyond comprehension that he would say, when exiting the top job, “Life isn’t fair”.

   How could a person with the experience and credentials to lead Britain’s biggest industrial company think such a thing, let alone say it!  It’s apparent he’s been insulated all his life from the world where most of us live…because we all know life’s not always fair. That’s a given; it’s how you respond that is a measure of your mettle. 

   Yes, he did admit making mistakes, and stated that it (managing the disaster) had not been a great PR success (if he was honest he would’ve have admitted it was a disaster).  But patently he learned nothing from the grueling experience of the past 101 days; and he has absolutely no empathy for those who lost their lives on the rig and their grieving families, for people whose lives and dreams have been shattered by the spill, for the havoc wreaked on the environment.

   A primary rule of managing the media is: know what you are going to say. Did he? It’s hard to believe.

   No, life is not fair when a person like Tony Hayward can walk away with a £1 million lump sum, and a pension of £600,000 a year!

   I expect you agree, life’s just not fair.

   

4. Spilling the beans becomes inevitable

   Published on Thursday, July 29th, 2010

   It wasn’t the Australian Leaders’ Debate that sparked a major controversy on Monday morning radio. Nor was it the Leaders’ debate timeslot being moved to give preference to the hotly contested final of Australian Masterchef on Sunday night. No, it was Radio New Zealand’s Morning Report inadvertently disclosing the winner of said cooking show.

   In an apparent slip of the tongue, host Geoff Robinson told listeners the name of the winner, later defending himself by saying it was all over the papers. Yes, the Australian papers. New Zealand viewers  are just two weeks into Aussie Masterchef, so many listeners of Morning Report were incensed.

   However, Robinson makes a good point in today’s global media space. It’s near impossible to keep such ‘news’ a secret and really; shouldn’t the cries of anguish and displeasure be levelled at TVNZ for airing the show so many weeks behind the Aussies?  Why not do what they did for American Idol, playing the finale a mere hours after it aired in America?

   We can expect there will be financial reasons for the delay, but as punters, more than ever before, we expect media connectivity, (including entertainment), to be ‘current’

   Thank you Morning Report, for highlighting the heavy feet of our state broadcaster.

   

5. Should governments have the right to censor Facebook?

   Published on Thursday, July 22nd, 2010

   Major tragedies are usually followed by a host of different reactions and responses. These are frequently played out in public as individuals try to connect with other like-minded people to affirm their own reaction to a situation. Naturally the online world offers many forums in which to do this.

   Most recently, British PM David Cameron came under fire for demanding a Facebook tribute page in memory of gunman Raoul Moat, named “RIP Raoul Moat you legend”, be taken down. The creator claimed the page was not to “condone what he did, as what he did was wrong. [I] Feel sorry for the families, but he was still a human being at the end of the day. He had problems and he didn’t get any help.”

   Despite this explanation, David Cameron condemned the page, categorically stating that he could not understand any sympathy towards this man. The UK government directly contacted Facebook and its creator, Mark Zuckerberg, asking that the page be taken down. 

   Facebook’s initial respone was that it is a “place where people can express their views and discuss things in an open way …as such there were times when people discussed topics others sometimes found distasteful. However, this is not a reason in itself to stop a debate from happening.”  So long as Facebook’s terms and conditions were not violated, the social media giant felt there was no case to answer to.

   Eventually the creator herself backed down, presumably in light of the outrage across the UK, and taking down the page earlier this week. 

   On one level, it seemed to me that David Cameron is possibly naïve in his belief that a government has the right to censor public opinion, and to do so in such a public way potentially has future ramifications. On the other they are representing the interests of their people, and when the brutal actions of one person look as though they are being celebrated, surely they can and should look to shut down that particular discussion.

   But Facebook also has a point. There are any number of distasteful and immoral topics being discussed on the internet and through social media even as you read this. Where is the line to be drawn? What if a corporation’s facebook page had negative messages written on it? Does the fact they have a Facebook page mean they are open to comments and criticism, or should they have the option to decide what is posted on their ‘wall’?

   How do we protect people’s right to free speech while ensuring it doesn’t result in the unreasonable victimisation or stigamitisation of others – be it an individual, brand, or an organisation?

   

6. There is no silver bullet for changing behaviour, it takes hard work and time…

   Published on Friday, July 16th, 2010

   New data showing that fewer young people are smoking offered some refreshingly good news yesterday.  Thanks to years of hard work by different organisations, each tackling different aspects of the issue, we are seeing some real progress.  

   The value of long term investment in social marketing and education, combined with a range of regulatory changes over many years, has surely been proven.  It also highlights the many challenges inherent in motivating behaviour change.
    
   A consistent increase in price to the point where smoking has become unaffordable is part of the story but isn’t the only factor. We’ve also seen wider cultural and societal shifts along with a better understanding of health protection and promotion.

   Another success factor is the ability to use single-minded messages like smoke-free, quit, stop and cut it out.  Interestingly, some of these messages are negative. This is something often deemed inappropriate but in this case seems to have done the job, showing yet again that we can’t apply a ‘cookie cutter’ approach to these things. The messages also left no room for confusion through use of words like moderation, balance and variety. 

   While this single-minded approach has been a common success factor in addressing some issues there are actually very few situations where a ‘silver bullet’ solution can be found.

   Unintended consequences can arise from taking a single message too far. Adherence to the skin cancer prevention slip, slop slap message has potentially resulted in substandard Vitamin D status for some, which could lead to poor bone health, diabetes and heart disease.

   It is at this point that for me the good news around smoking could take a bad turn. I can once again see this great success story being misrepresented and cited as a blueprint for reducing population obesity levels. Demonising one food or even one food company on the basis of the anti-tobacco lobby’s success would be misleading and show a lack of understanding of consumers as individuals.  

   Such an approach fails to take into account the complex social, cultural, psychological and (let’s not forget) life-giving attributes of food.  You can’t put these things in a patch and stick them on your arm.  Single minded messages might sometimes be useful but their interpretation depends on the perspective of each individual. 

   If we want to shift our energy balance in the right direction we need to focus on burning the excess fat stored in bodies than vilifying individual food products.  It is never going to be a precise process that ‘fixes’ a problem. It has taken anti-smoking groups decades to reach this point and their work continues. Here’s hoping we take the appropriate lessons from this good news.

   

7. Lying as part of your strategy

   Published on Friday, July 9th, 2010

   Will we believe anything they say from now on? Possibly not. I’m talking about the Sea Shepherd organisation announcement publicly severing its relationship with the incarcerated Pete Bethune.

   No sooner had Bethune received what was widely regarded as a light two-year suspended sentence from the Japanese courts, than Sea Shepherd tells us that its statements about casting Bethune adrift were a “strategy”. Rather than being dumped, Bethune is coming home to a hero’s welcome and big party.

   The strategy was to tell a big fat lie. This from an organisation which from the Southern Ocean tells us nothing the Japanese whalers are saying is true.

   Sea Shepherd was out to fool the Japanese, and probably did.

   I have to question whether this was a good strategy.  Certainly it is not one I would be comfortable with, as I’m not sure I will ever believe what this organisation says again.

   What about the next Kiwi who finds him or herself in front of the Japanese court that has been humiliated by Sea Shepherd and Bethune.  They insist that good ole Pete knew nothing of this. Really?

   

8. Can Social Media Turn the Tide for the Obama Administration?

   Published on Thursday, June 17th, 2010

   Ariana Huffington, Editor in Chief and Co-Founder of the self-named Huffington Post, wrote an interesting piece last week on how the US government is looking to develop social media channels to enable the public to be more closely involved in the decision-making processes of government. 

   Possibly it’s part of the Obama Adminstration’ s move to address concerns that Pres. Obama is not hearing what the people want. But it is also a sign of their very real understanding of the need to integrate modern communication mechanisms into the traditional communications mix.  
    
   The Obama administration’s appointment of the first ever Chief Information Officer demonstrates its awareness that this space should be developed, managed and protected, just as any other major piece of the nations infrastructure needs to be handled. So perhaps this next move will in fact highlight some of the underlying traps that businesses currently face.

   Presumably with access to the best tech brains in the US to help refine and fashion social media as an effective communication channel, the outcomes should be very interesting.
    
   While the premise of public input into law making via the news channels is  refreshing, almost inevitably there is a high risk of issues being captured by lobby groups who may use such  anonymous forums as a way of promoting their version of what  real Jo Public thinks  – which may not be correct. On the other hand, any such attempts at manipulation may be so obvious as to not be an issue, and the forum will prove to be a more modern means of truly allowing public participation in government. 
    
   Delivery of, and access to information through technology is an area that potentially requires a whole new set of guidelines, regulations and laws. Undoubtedly they will come and offset the wild-west dimension to what some people continue say and do in the new media. Examples abound of rogue sites, blogs and facebook postings. Here’s hoping that an initiative by a really tech savvy government will create some outcomes that will prove beneficial for the rest of the world.

   

9. Probing whether the media is observer or creator

   Published on Thursday, June 10th, 2010

   A question those of us involved in communication often debate is whether the media reports news, or creates it. It’s one of those circular discussions, as we all have countless examples we can table that support our point of view.

   I was intrigued therefore when a report from Media Monitors* crossed my desk which sought to answer the question “what role the media played in creating or reinforcing” views around the global financial crisis.

   While the report drew no clear cut conclusion, what it did demonstrate was that media in different countries throughout the Asia/Pacific media put a different emphasis on the crisis during the critical months of April to August 2009.

   For example:

   • In New Zealand, 25% of our coverage focused on ‘excessive greed’ in proportioning blame for the crisis, compared to 5 percent for the Asia/Pacific region.

   • The Region saw the blame lying squarely at the feet of ‘weak regulations’ (close to 30 percent) whereas we rated it in second place, with 18%.

   • When focusing on the main indicator showing that the economic downturn was continuing, our measure was GDP (26%). The Region focused on exports (30%).

   • When looking for signs of recovery, our coverage focused on retail sales (18%), the Region on economic growth (22%).

   • Our media was the only one to that saw rebalancing the global economy as the main future challenge, whereas across the Region the main future challenge was seen as unemployment.

   My conclusion was that the report clearly shows that nationally the media collectively forms a view, and that its coverage then focuses on aspects that it believes are the most relevant.

   It would have been interesting if a parallel piece of research had run at the same time to measure whether the public bought into the media’s views, or held different opinions.

   Armed with that we would have been able to get closer to answering the question as to whether the media reports, or creates news.

   *The Global Financial Crisis Report, Media Monitors, v5, January 2010

   

10. The revenge of the people with red hair

    Published on Thursday, May 27th, 2010

    It’s a topic that has garnered more interest than mining: hug a ginga, says The Edge.

    This polarising issue featured two nights running on Close Up, which means they’ve struck a topic that gets people engaged.

    As far as a media performance goes, on Tuesday night I tipped my hat to teacher and father of two red heads, Stephen Simpson, who gave Edge radio jock Dominic Harvey a lesson in managing your messages for television. Harvey was ill-prepared and over confident, and Simpson was not awed by the celebs. 

    Harvey’s final blunder was to call host Mark Sainbury, “Sainsso”. Another cosy radio relationship?

    Round 1 to Simpson.

    On Wednesday evening the performances were reversed. As if bolstered by the success of his previous performance, Simpson was too cocky and overbearing.  In contrast, radio jock Harvey was conciliatory and measured, and the arrogance of the previous night was gone.

    Round 2 to Harvey and The Edge.

    Lessons: when it comes to television, one success does not make you an expert; and quit while you are ahead.  Simpson would have been better to decline the studio interview on the basis that he’d said all he had to say.  Had he done so, he’d still be a winner.

    For me, the last word goes to the Wellington woman who says: my response to being hugged will be: thanks moron!