Connect with us

Uncategorized

Press Muse – It shouldn’t be just business

It is harder now to look for the news in Today. Spiegel.

Published

15 years ago

on

Spiegel

I can hardly claim this to be an exhaustive account, but over the past month or so it seemed rather difficult to get a dose of the day’s big news from the front pages of Singaporean English-language newspapers.

I first noticed this on 18 November, when the Straits Times threw around its main section a translucent coversheet promoting Volkswagen’s new Polo model. See-through it may be, readers nonetheless would have been severely distracted from the front page content by this novel advertisement.

A month before Christmas, on 24 November, Today set the shopping ball rolling, selling its first two pages out to John Little. Then the SEA Games beckoned and Milo got into the act, placing ads on the front two pages of the 8 December issue.

Perhaps inspired by Today’s example,  The New Paper proceeded the very next day to whore out its first three pages (and the back page) to the milk beverage brand.

My Paper hummed to the same tune. On one day, you might get a full-page advert for Ginvera facial care products fronted the issue, without a single line of news in sight. On another, you might get Linda Chung sporting a wistful look, hoping that’ll convince of the wondrous nourishing qualities that Bio-essence attributes to its Hydra Spa Energy sleeping mask.

From 3 to 24 December, 12 out of 16 weekday day issues carried a full-page advert on its front cover. Over the same period of time, My Paper did the same for 7 out of 16 issues.

What ever happened to the news? Not quite as important as the cheques waved in the faces of newspaper executives I imagine.

Sure, the cover pages aren’t actually labeled as page 1. When Today, for example, carries full-page adverts on its de facto first two pages, it labels them as part of the cover wrap”, and the third page becomes the de jure first. But nonetheless, newspapers without the news on the cover? Something a bit wrong with that, no?

That these newspapers could get away with it is pretty damning indictment of their attitudes towards their audience. Page 1 is the most important of any newspaper, and to plaster it with anything but the biggest news story for the day would be bad form and a great disservice to readers. In this regard, the local freesheets are probably the worst perpetrators. Pick up a copy of SPH’s Paper or MediaCorp’s <oday and more often than not you wouldn’t know what the big news was until you reach page three.

To be fair, the newspaper business model is highly dependent on advertising revenues, and more so for freesheets. But even conceding this fact, it would appear that day is a tad too willing to whore its pages out for some dough.

In terms of amount of advertising as a proportion of total print space, the 9, 10 and 11 December issues are particularly damning. Using rough calculations (in interest of transparency I explain my methodology below), I noted that over 58 pages worth of space out of 80 pages in the 9 December edition were covered by advertisements – a whopping 72.6 per cent. There was a slight improvement the next day, when Today managed just under 71 per cent advertising. On 11 December, the figure went up to nearly 74 per cent.

For the 16 weekday issues published from 3 to 24 December, my sums indicate that on average over 65 per cent of the paper’s print space would be taken up by advertising. That means almost two-thirds of day’s content in the past three weeks were not news. You could be forgiven for mistaking it for a free shopping catalogue, with some random news slapped in between the salacious models and massive discounts.

But perhaps the freesheet business model necessitates such high volume of advertising. Or the high incidence could be a consequence of the Christmas shopping period. Advertisers after all would be more eager than usual to splash the cash for ad space. As such, I will make a significant but probably useful compromise, so as to provide some kind of context to day’s advertising numbers. I hazard a comparison with their rival freesheet Paper.

Before I do so, it is important to consider possible mitigating factors. For a start, it should be noted that from July 2008 to June 2009 My Paper has averaged only eight per cent of the daily readership, in contrast to Today‘s 18 per cent. Advertisers may therefore feel more inclined to place adverts with Today – a factor which may account for the discrepancy in proportion of advertisements in each paper.

However, this inclination may be moderated by the papers’ advertising rates. As a basic guide, Today charges a rate of $28-$30 per column cm on weekdays compared to My Paper ‘s $19 per column cm. It is also more expensive to buy front page ad space in <oday; an advert 12cm tall by eight columns wide (slightly under half-page) would cost from $12,745.15 to $13,655.52 on weekdays, while a full front page My Paper advert (29cm tall by six columns wide) would cost $12,000.

There are still problems with this nonetheless. Ideally, to test whether the Christmas season was crucial in propping up the advertising volume, I would want to do a comparison with the percentages for the rest of the year. Alas, I’m but one man; unable to devote this much time and effort to collate this data over a sustained period.

Having considered these caveats, it nonetheless appears that My Paper is a lot more prudish when it comes to printing advertisements.

In the month before Christmas, My Paper had only two issues in which the advertisements took up over half of the print space. In the 26 November issue, nearly 55 per cent of its print space was taken up by adverts – nearly 55 per cent. Of the 11 December issue, just over 26 of its 52 pages were devoted to advertising.

On the whole, My Paper was nowhere as prolific as Today was in selling advertising space. The proportion of advertising space in My Paper in the past month (calculated from 19 issues dated 30 November to 24 December) averaged at only just above 26 per cent.

The difference in the proportion of advertising is startling – nearly two-thirds in Today compared with just over one-quarter in My Paper. Even factoring in readership share and advertising rates, it would seem that MediaCorp is somewhat more cavalier about selling off its print space than SPH.

These phenomena – whoring out front pages and print space – are symptoms of a more fundamental problem. Satisfying the reader is no longer an unqualified standalone priority for those who run newspapers. For better or for worse, the news media has evolved into a commercially-driven enterprise, mostly run by profit-minded proprietors whose prime concern with the journalism they produce is its profitability. To this end, satisfying the readers’ wants is important insofar as it brings in the money.

It may not be a stereotype to say that newspapers each pull off their own balancing act, between satiating executives’ quest for profits, journalists fulfilling their professional sensibilities and meeting the needs and wants of their readers.

The formula varies. Some pander far too much to readers, seeking to entertain and patronise rather than inform and educate. The Sun, the leading British daily tabloid and <he 10th largest newspaper in the world in terms of circulation, fuels moral panics and doles out generous helpings of crime, political and celebrity scandals and a daily topless female model on page 3.

Similarly, the Daily Mail finds its success – sustaining circulation over 2.1m in the past decade – in fashioning itself as the ‘voice of middle England’, pitching news and moral hysteria to its readership of lower middle-class white Britons, at the expense of journalistic ethics.

There are perhaps better ways to balance competing priorities than these unsavoury approaches. For instance, there are the likes of the Guardian Media Group, which owns amongst its titles The Guardian and The Observer. Unlike most other media organisations, the GMG “does not seek profit for the financial benefit of an owner or shareholders”, but aims to “sustain journalism that is free from commercial or political interference” whilst upholding liberal values and its public service ethos. The Group in turn is wholly owned by the Scott Trust, created in 1936 to preserve the financial and editorial independence of the Guardian in perpetuity, whilst championing “its principles” and promoting “freedom of the press in the UK and abroad.”

But while it aspires to lofty ideals, the Group’s flagship papers attract only a modest print readership – the Guardian consistently comes in second last in the circulation league table of national daily newspapers, while its sister paper the Observer records similarly poor numbers. Clearly, not many readers care that much for noble philosophical aspirations or transparency in journalism.

Then there is the straying too far in the direction of sheer profit-making; the blind application of the commercial logic by ditching news for adverts on the front page, or filling print space with more advertising than journalistic content (see: pleasing shareholders and screwing readers). Today seems to heading in that direction – an unfortunately myopic choice and likely damaging in the long-run.

But the bottomline is what it is, and perhaps newspaper executives sense that it is creeping up in these bad times, and decided that something has got to give. Perhaps the past month of high advertising volume was Today’s way of capitalising on the Christmas consumption boost to rake in the cash. Maybe the selling of “creative buys” and “cover wraps” is their way of suckering corporate clients into parting with their cash, seemingly viable with the economy finding its feet again.

It remains to be seen whether Today has out its readers off by swinging too far towards profit maximisation. But it shouldn’t hurt to remind ourselves that readers don’t pick up newspapers to be told that it’s marvelous what Milo can do for them. They rather wish to find out something new and relevant about their community and their world, to be entertained, and hopefully be informed and educated as well. Editors and executives will do well to remember that.

Methodology

The proportion of advertising in the freesheets were calculated by dividing the amount of print space taken up by adverts (in number of pages) by the total number of pages in the main section of the paper. I defined print space as the space on the pages of the paper where content is normally placed – it did not include the margins and normal layout elements like page numbers, dates and section headings.

I classified adverts by the following sizes – full-page, half-page, quarter-page, 1/6-page, and 1/8-page. Where adverts do not fit exactly into these size categories, I would round it down and place it into the next smaller size category (for example, an advert which takes up 1/5 of the page would be counted as a 1/6 page ad). In the case of 1/3 page adverts, I recorded them as two 1/6 page adverts.

All commercial adverts were included in the calculations. Movie and television listings were not considered to be advertising, although movie posters were.

In calculating the proportion of advertising in Today, I disregarded any supplementary sections. This is because supplements do not contain news content, and tend to have soft adverts (especially fashion catalogues, a la magazines) which form much of its content. Also, My Paper doesn’t do supplements to my knowledge. Therefore, including supplements in the calculation would skew the results to the disadvantage of Today.Given the roughness of such calculations, it must be emphasised the percentages are meant to be a crude, but I think nonetheless useful, guide.

——

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Indonesia

Miss Universe cuts ties with Indonesia chapter after harassment allegations

The Miss Universe Organization severs ties with Indonesia franchise due to harassment claims. Malaysia edition canceled.

Women allege body checks before pageant. Investigation launched. Safety prioritized.

Indonesia winner to compete in November finale. Height requirement controversy.

Published

1 year ago

on

14 August 2023

By

WASHINGTON, UNITED STATES — The Miss Universe Organization has cut ties with its Indonesia franchise, it announced days after allegations of sexual harassment, and will cancel an upcoming Malaysia edition.

In the complaint, more than a half dozen women said all 30 finalists for Miss Universe Indonesia were unexpectedly asked to strip for a supposed body check for scars and cellulite two days before the pageant’s crowning ceremony in Jakarta.

Their lawyer said Tuesday that five of the women had their pictures taken.

“In light of what we have learned took place at Miss Universe Indonesia, it has become clear that this franchise has not lived up to our brand standards, ethics, or expectations,” the US-based Miss Universe Organization posted Saturday night on social media site X, formerly known as Twitter.

It said that it had “decided to terminate the relationship with its current franchise in Indonesia, PT Capella Swastika Karya, and its National Director, Poppy Capella.”

It thanked the contestants for their bravery in coming forward and added that “providing a safe place for women” was the organization’s priority.

Jakarta police spokesman Trunoyudo Wisnu Andiko said Tuesday that an investigation into the women’s complaint has been launched.

The Indonesia franchise also holds the license for Miss Universe Malaysia, where there will no longer be a competition this year, according to the New York-based parent organizer.

In a lengthy statement posted to Instagram, Indonesia franchise director Capella denied involvement in any body checks.

“I, as the National Director and as the owner of the Miss Universe Indonesia license, was not involved at all and have never known, ordered, requested or allowed anyone who played a role and participated in the process of organizing Miss Universe Indonesia 2023 to commit violence or sexual harassment through body checking,” she wrote.

She added that she is against “any form of violence or sexual harassment.”

The Jakarta competition was held from 29 July to 3 August to choose Indonesia’s representative to the 2023 Miss Universe contest, and was won by Fabienne Nicole Groeneveld.

Miss Universe said it would make arrangements for her to compete in the finale, scheduled for November in El Salvador.

This year’s Indonesia pageant also came under fire for announcing a “significant change in this (year’s) competition guidelines” with the elimination of its minimum height requirement after it had crowned a winner.

In its statement, the Miss Universe Organization said it wanted to “make it extremely clear that there are no measurements such as height, weight, or body dimensions required to join a Miss Universe pageant worldwide.”

— AFP

Continue Reading

Malaysia

A Perodua service centre in Kuantan, Malaysia went viral for its strict dress code, Perodua responds

A dress code for vehicle servicing? A Malaysian car brand’s service centre dress code signage has puzzled netizens, raising queries about the need for attire rules during a routine service.

The manufacturer responded with an official statement after a flurry of comments, seeking to clarify and apologize.

Published

1 year ago

on

10 August 2023

By

MALAYSIA: A dress code signage positioned at a service centre belonging to a prominent Malaysian car brand has sparked bewilderment among Malaysian netizens, who question the necessity of adhering to attire guidelines for a simple vehicle servicing.

The signage explicitly delineates clothing items that are deemed unsuitable, including sleeveless tops, short skirts, abbreviated pants, and distressed jeans.

The car manufacturer swiftly found itself flooded with comments from both inquisitive and irked Malaysian netizens. This surge in online activity prompted the company to issue an official statement aimed at clarifying the situation and extending an apology.

In a post that gained significant traction on the social media platform, politician Quek Tai Seong of Pahang State, Malaysia, shared an image to Facebook on Monday (7 Aug).

The image showcased a dress code sign prominently displayed at a Perodua Service Centre in Kuantan. Within the post, Quek posed the question: “Is this dress code applicable nationwide, or is it specific to this branch?”

The signage reads, “All customers dealing with Perodua Service Kuantan 1, Semambu, are requested to dress modestly and appropriately.”

Adding visual clarity to these guidelines, the sign features illustrative graphics that explicitly outline clothing items deemed unacceptable, including sleeveless tops, short skirts, short pants, and ripped jeans.

Delineating the specifics of the dress code, the signage stipulates that male visitors are expected to don shirts accompanied by neckties, opt for long pants, and wear closed shoes.

Conversely, female visitors are advised to don long-sleeved shirts, full-length skirts, and closed-toe footwear.

Perodua’s dress code sparks online uproar

Following the rapid spread of the post, Perodua’s official Facebook page found itself inundated with comments from both intrigued and frustrated Malaysian netizens, all seeking clarifications about the newly surfaced dress code policy.

Amidst the flurry of comments, numerous incensed netizens posed pointed questions such as, “What is the rationale behind the introduction of such regulations by the management? We demand an explanation.”

Another netizen expressed their dissatisfaction, arguing against the necessity of the rule and urging Perodua to take inspiration from the practices of other 4S (Sales, Service, Spare Parts, and Survey) automotive dealerships.

A concerned Facebook user chimed in, advocating for a more lenient stance, asserting that attempting to dictate customers’ clothing choices might not be in the company’s best interest.

Someone also commented in an angry tone, “Oi what is this? Going there for car service, not interview or working, right.”

As the discourse unfolded, it became evident that while some inquiries carried genuine weight, others chose to inject humor into the situation, playfully remarking, “If I wanted to buy a Myvi, I should buy or rent a formal attire first.”

“I sell economy rice at a hawker centre, I have never worn a long sleeve shirt and a tie… I guess I will not buy a Perodua car then.”

“I guess they will not serve those who wear short pants.”

Perodua addresses dress code controversy

As reported by Chinese media outlet Sin Chew Daily News, the manager of Kuantan’s Perodua Service Centre had acknowledged that the images on the dress code signage were misleading.

In response, the manager divulged that discussions had transpired with the head office, leading to the prompt removal of the signage to prevent any further misconceptions.

The manager clarifies, “We do encourage visitors to adhere to the dress etiquette, but we won’t go to the extent of restricting their choice of attire.”

He also revealed that currently, no complaints have been directly received from the public.

However, feedback from certain customers was relayed through Perodua’s agents.

Perodua also released an official statement by chief operating officer JK Rozman Jaffar on Wednesday (9 Aug) regarding the dress code on their official Facebook page.

The statement stated the dress code etiquette is not aligned with their official guidelines and they are currently conducting an official investigation on the matter followed by corrective measures to avoid the same incident from happening.

Perodua also extends its apologies for any inconvenience caused.

 

Continue Reading

Trending