Advertising Clutter, Demassification and Its Effect of Newspaper and Magazine Readers - Assignment Example

Introduction to Mass Media: Issues on Regulation, Ethics and Public Interest ­­­­­­­­­­_______________________________________________________ Advertising Question #1 – What is advertising clutter? Describe, and propose your own solution. Advertising clutter is the current media phenomenon in which consumers are treated to a blur of advertisements. Media outlets seem to accommodate all the advertisers that come their way, such that little space or airtime is left for editorial content. In the print media, for example, the typical make-up of each page in today’s widely circulated newspapers is three-quarter ads and only one-quarter news, with ear ads sometimes found even on the front page. For radio and television, a one-hour program may actually run for only 25 minutes because the remaining 35 minutes is devoted to commercial spots. Thus, Leo Bogart of the Newspaper Advertising Bureau observed that in the 1992 Winter Olympics, the CBS coverage was crammed with so many ads that the event itself has been relegated to a “mere sideshow.” Media is also a business concern and media organizations need advertising revenues to survive, but too much of ads smack of greed and present an irritating distraction to consumers. Regulating the volume of ad placement in media will not work, as demonstrated in the US when the National Association of Broadcasters required radio and TV stations to limit the quantity of their commercials in a given program as part of a code of ethics for the broadcast industry. The stations protested and the federal court subsequently ruled against the NAB-ordered limitation as arbitrary and monopolistic. Therefore, the best way to solve the problem of advertising clutter, I think, is to leave the matter alone to consumer welfare groups since it is the consumers themselves who feel slighted by this media practice. There are well-organized consumer groups everywhere who can mount a campaign to persuade newspapers and magazines, radio and TV networks to moderate their ad placements by appealing on their common sense and spirit of fair play. Among the possible arguments is that by serving up more ads than content, the newspapers or stations might alienate their readers or listeners who will feel that their interest is being subordinated to monetary considerations. Question #2 – What are the effects on consumers of such regulatory bodies as Advertising Standards Canada? Is further regulation necessary? If so, what type and by whom? Regulatory bodies like the Advertising Standards Canada have helped advance consumer interest in such areas as public health, child welfare and quality programming. For example, the ASC edict controlling or banning ads on alcoholic beverages in broadcast media, depending on the age and educational level of a program’s target audience, certainly promotes public health and well-being through responsible consumption of alcohol. The same benefit is derived from the ASC ruling disallowing tobacco firms from sponsoring major cultural or sporting events, which calls attention to the health risks of smoking. As for child welfare, the ASC order allowing the airing of adult-oriented ads only on late-night programs contributes in no small measure to children education. Without this kind of prohibition, adult-oriented ads such as those showing scantily clad women would have been standard fare on daytime and primetime TV to cause harm to children. Advertising Standards Canada is a self-regulatory body, which means that it was organized and is run by the media industry itself to police its own ranks. This is the ideal setup, without government intruding into the picture. According to Pinkerton (2002), it is essential that the media industry should be subject to self-regulation and protected from government control. Government participation in media regulation will arouse suspicion and misgiving because of the sensitive nature of this industry. For the same reason, the coverage of regulation should be confined to areas involving ethics and consumer welfare, similar to those mentioned above. Thus, no further regulation is necessary. The ads that should be regulated may extend to those that suggest sex and violence and promote unhealthy eating habits and herbal medicines of unproven efficacy. Reference: Pinkerton, R. (2002). “Press Freedom and Press Regulation.” Available online at: http://www.pccpapers.org.uk/gfx/105344810.pdf ______________________________________________________ Newspapers and Magazines Question #1 – What is “demassification” and how has it affected newspaper and magazine readers? Demassification is the publication of periodicals whose content is intended for audiences with narrow and specialized interests. In this process, general interest magazines give way to special interest publications that focus their content on limited subjects and cater to a narrower audience. In Canada, the demassified publications that emerged in the 1960s were regional and city magazines such as Vancouver Magazine and Cityscope (Calgary) and the Video News & Reviews for videophiles. Elsewhere, there are magazines on automotive mechanics, house care, gardening, sports and show business gossips. Extra expense is one of the possible effects of demassification on consumers who are accustomed to reading general-interest newspapers and magazines. If a New York Times subscriber is a sports enthusiast, for example, his reading fare will now include Sports Illustrated, which means additional costs. The demassified publications contribute to advertising clutter in the sense that it creates more specialized outlets for advertisers. In the case of Auto Mechanics, every car and spare part manufacturer, dealer, motor shop will want to place an ad on it. Such overexposure to ads are expected to dull the senses of consumers that advertising may no longer influence purchase decisions. In fact, recent studies show that consumers are influenced less and less by ads in their purchasing decisions. Harry McMahan studied Clio awards for creativity in the US and found that 38 advertising agencies that produced 81 Clio winners had lost these accounts or gone out of business. Question #2 – What, in your opinion, has the Davey Committee and Kent Commission achieved in regulating media ownership? The Davey Committee, the special Senate committee headed by Sen. Keith Davey that looked into the state of Canadian media in 1970, expressed concern over the fact that media ownership is passing into fewer and fewer hands. At the time, it was noted that three-quarter of newspaper circulation in the whole of Canada was controlled by only three newspaper chains – Thomson, FP and Southam. As a consequence, there was no media competition in 30 of the country’s 35 towns and cities. For this reason, the Davey Committee recommended the creation of a Press Ownership Review Board, which will discourage the concentration of media ownership. The committee findings and recommendations were hotly debated in Congress but the issue was eventually overtaken by other more pressing events. This was the same course taken by the Kent Commission in 1981, at which time there was no change seen in media ownership. The Kent Commission, like the Davey Committee 10 years earlier, failed to introduce regulation and was instead forced to give in to deregulation. Now, media firms in Canada can own a newspaper and hold a broadcasting license at the same time in the same market, but subject to “benefit tests” and, where relevant, the maintenance of editorial separation (Sturm, 2000). Too much concentration of media ownership in a few hands works against public interest because it makes media so powerful it can withhold vital information and influence even election results (Thibodaux, 2005). To illustrate, the pro-Bush Cumulus Media, which owned 262 radio stations across the US, refused to play any records of the rock group Dixie Chicks in 2003 after its lead singer Natalie Maines disparaged the US war on Iraq. References: Sturm, J. (2000), “Time for Change on Media Ownership Regulation,” Federal Communications Law Journal, March 2000. Thibodaux III, R. (2005), “Is it Time to Revisit the Fairness Doctrine in Reponse to FCC-proposed Media Ownership Rules?” Seton University of Law. _______________________________________________________ Sound and Music Recordings Question #1 – In what way can music recordings influence minds and social events? Can you cite recent examples? Recorded music, like media in general, is a potent tool for propaganda and for molding public opinion. As a social force, sound recordings can move hearts and minds for good or ill. The story goes that Mark Chapman killed Beatle John Lennon in 1980 after listening to Lennon’s music (Stevenson, 2002). A happier example is the recording “We Are the World,” which was cut by a large group of American performers in the 1980s for the benefit of the children dying of famine in Africa. The project generated $50 million from donation and sales, thus accomplishing its praiseworthy humanitarian goals. Music recordings can also start a new trend of dressing or set a new lifestyle. For instance, funk music gave rise to the funky look that consists of outlandish clothes and accessories. Social historians like to think that Elvis Presley, the “white man who sang like a black man,” made a big contribution to racial integration in America. It will be noted that before Elvis’s rise to fame, few black musicians and singers were adored by the white communities in the US and elsewhere. The black singers liked Elvis’s music and his gyrations and they followed his lead and achieved popularity beyond the black community. Reference: Stevenson, N. (2002). “Understanding Media Culture,” 2d ed.,Sage Publications. Question #2 – Do you foresee any solution to the problem of music piracy? Is the solution proposed by Apple’s iTunes the right approach? Music piracy deprives recording companies of some 20 percent of their expected sales, which translates to over $300 million in Canada and about $1.5 billion worldwide. In Canada, the most prevalent of such thievery is the practice of people of sharing records and then dubbing them onto relatively inexpensive blank tapes. They can make as many copies as they want, which may be sold at a price 10 times lower than the price tag at record stores. There is a machine suitable for this purpose, which can dub tapes from records or record from the air at the drop of a toggle. This is abetted by radio stations on the FM-stereo band, which cater to home dubbers by playing new albums non-stop. Such form of music piracy pales in comparison to the copying of music records and films in less developed countries for business purposes. The pirated records and CDs, which look exactly like the original because they are made from sophisticated machines, are then sold in the black market at greatly reduced prices. The solution proposed by iTunes of Apple might work in countries like Canada where computer use is extensive and the purchasing power of consumers is relatively strong, but not in Asian countries where a bargain will always draw consumers no matter if the record is pirated. ________________________________________________________________ Radio Stations Question #1- Will the Internet, digital and satellite radio change your listening habits? How? Except for the price of a radio set, radio broadcasting in the analog era costs consumers nothing because the stations derive their sustenance from advertising. In the new digital world, in which radio stations broadcast via satellite or the Internet, consumers will be charged for listening since radio stations rely on subscription fees as their only source of funds. This means more quality programs for radio listeners because radio stations will be more selective in their programming to ensure that no one withdraws his subscription out of dissatisfaction. Moreover, radio listeners are spared the advertising clutter that frustrates many consumers. In advertising-supported broadcasting, radio stations seek to please the advertisers more than their listeners. Question #2 – What is the difference between public and private stations? Can the two continue to coexist? The basic difference between public and private stations is the source of their operating funds. One is operated for profit and thus depends on advertising or subscription fees, while the other relies on government funding and is service-oriented. For this reason, it is often said that private stations deliver what people want to hear while public broadcast stations deliver what people should hear. An example of a public station is Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission, which was patterned after the BBC in UK and tasked with the mission to “inform and educate.” The CRBC was created when it was noted that Canadian culture was being supplanted by the American way of life through US networks that dominated Canadian airwaves. In effect, public stations air programs with social, cultural and educational benefits, which private stations will find unprofitable. Public and private stations can coexist as shown in the US where such state-funded stations as Children’s Television Workshop that broadcast “Sesame Street” peacefully coexist with private stations. Read More