A celebrity editor’s newly created blog-site carries a post in his inimitable signature style – “When it comes to lingerie, do men even notice?” (Click here to read)
So far I have religiously stayed clear of discussing editorial questions, assiduously sticking to issues on the management of publications. But, the 2 perhaps are not so unrelated after all – especially when we say that media brands are ultimately made or unmade by their content.
Recently a salacious spat has come out into the open (click here to read) – following the enigma wrapped departure of a marquee editor and another journalistic icon’s guest column getting axed from the same paper (also read by clicking here).
In my mind, I have no doubt whatsoever that, the ordinary lay readers don’t give a fig for such dirty laundry hanging in public. For the few who do notice - usually people from the industry – it simply makes gossip around the coffee machine on editorial floors or at the Press Club. But, sometimes – without realizing – it can be the first symptoms of a deeper malaise – which, in the humble opinion of this blog-keeper should be a matter of concern for the ‘management’ – as, if left unattended, it can affect the ‘brand’ in the longer term.
Debates accha hai
Debates are healthy in any form. When a publication gives space for differing points of view – I believe it does raise the credibility of the paper as a whole, which readers come to appreciate over time and that builds loyalty.
Respected publications do this in the normal course – routinely publishing – columns by writers of differing ideological leanings or viewpoints. Television channels do it all the time in their news-hour and talk shows. Even The Times of India has made a virtue of this with its ‘Point and Counter-point’ (or is it the “Times View” and “Other View” – or something to that effect), which has become a regular feature. Its Sunday edit page often carries diametrically opposing opinions on the same issue.
(not-so) Cozy Bed-fellows
But – when the feud of egos (or “principles” – any which way you chose to look at it) spill over from the edit pages into the blogosphere or find their way into other publications and that too either making the management cozy bed-fellows or objects of pot-shots, it’s something else and calls for serious analysis.
It is here that the church begins to yield its sacred ground to the plebeian state – and once the territorial boundaries are blurred it is difficult to redraw the LoC even by a UN decree. And, when the borders change – so does the character of the “Brand”. This is something good marketers (which, the modern day newspaper honchos rightfully claim to be) can ignore only at their own peril – because just like the Consumer, a Reader too is not a fool at the end of the day.
So far I have religiously stayed clear of discussing editorial questions, assiduously sticking to issues on the management of publications. But, the 2 perhaps are not so unrelated after all – especially when we say that media brands are ultimately made or unmade by their content.
Recently a salacious spat has come out into the open (click here to read) – following the enigma wrapped departure of a marquee editor and another journalistic icon’s guest column getting axed from the same paper (also read by clicking here).
In my mind, I have no doubt whatsoever that, the ordinary lay readers don’t give a fig for such dirty laundry hanging in public. For the few who do notice - usually people from the industry – it simply makes gossip around the coffee machine on editorial floors or at the Press Club. But, sometimes – without realizing – it can be the first symptoms of a deeper malaise – which, in the humble opinion of this blog-keeper should be a matter of concern for the ‘management’ – as, if left unattended, it can affect the ‘brand’ in the longer term.
Debates accha hai
Debates are healthy in any form. When a publication gives space for differing points of view – I believe it does raise the credibility of the paper as a whole, which readers come to appreciate over time and that builds loyalty.
Respected publications do this in the normal course – routinely publishing – columns by writers of differing ideological leanings or viewpoints. Television channels do it all the time in their news-hour and talk shows. Even The Times of India has made a virtue of this with its ‘Point and Counter-point’ (or is it the “Times View” and “Other View” – or something to that effect), which has become a regular feature. Its Sunday edit page often carries diametrically opposing opinions on the same issue.
(not-so) Cozy Bed-fellows
But – when the feud of egos (or “principles” – any which way you chose to look at it) spill over from the edit pages into the blogosphere or find their way into other publications and that too either making the management cozy bed-fellows or objects of pot-shots, it’s something else and calls for serious analysis.
It is here that the church begins to yield its sacred ground to the plebeian state – and once the territorial boundaries are blurred it is difficult to redraw the LoC even by a UN decree. And, when the borders change – so does the character of the “Brand”. This is something good marketers (which, the modern day newspaper honchos rightfully claim to be) can ignore only at their own peril – because just like the Consumer, a Reader too is not a fool at the end of the day.
2 comments:
As you said I don't think a normal reader isn't fool, coz they look for familiar names n columnist that they are used to. It could be someone from features like movie critique to political observer.
Have seen this in past working places happen too...
I do not believe the issue is as simple. If there's an overall belief in 'transparency' then I believe it was the right thing to explain, to readers, why a particular, popular column is being witdrawn. If it strengthens the belief 'in right to information' - then why put it down?
To paraphrase a popular saying - the reader is not a moron......
Please refrain from treating reasders with kid gloves. they comprise you and me. And such incidents strengthen the brand - if anything else.
Comparisons are odious - so am not commenting on what other papers do - but it does not necessarily mean what the other is doing is correct.
anonymous
Post a Comment