FXI Presentation to the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Communications

Poor communities in South Africa have limited access to media, to enable
them acquire information that is relevant to their lives, and also to
express themselves in order to contribute to national debates. While the
main source of income for media companies in the country is advertising, the
findings of the Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI) National Community
Radio Forum (NCRF) research report that there is discrimination (on the
bases of content and the racial group that listens to the station) and
several other problems in the advertising industry is a cause of great
concern.

It appears as though the problem of limited access to media among black
communities will never be solved unless something is done urgently.
Adverting is affected and it also affects target audience of a particular
media house. And if distribution of adverts is done through consideration of
the colour of skin and content then it will be very difficult to distribute
the media to reach black South African in rural areas and township with the
kind of media they deserve. FXI Presentation to the Parliamentary Portfolio
Committee on Communications raises these problems and also makes
recommendations.

Section One

The findings of the research were as follows:

Community radio stations are still facing problems when they approach
advertisers because of the delays that were caused by the Independent
Communications Authority of South Africa in issuing four-year broadcast
licenses. Advertisers are reluctant to enter into long-term contracts with
stations as they argue that the future of stations that hold one-year
licenses is not certain. For more on this subject see { HYPERLINK
http://www.fxi.org.za/cmrn/cmpru/index.htm }www.fxi.org.za/cmrn/cmpru/index.
htm

There is perceived discrimination on the side of advertisers towards black
stations. It was found that the average advertising income for a largely
white station is R1, 2 million whereas the income for a black station is
R100 000.

Rural stations were most affected by the practice of advertisers. They
faired much more badly than their urban counterparts.

In some cases it was found that advertisers attempted to influence the
content of the stations' programmes. In one case advertisers complained
about the content of a programme which they said was too 'hard', meaning too
political in addressing issues. Advertisers gave the station management an
option of either loosing the revenue or 'toning' down the content of the
programme. The management bowed to this kind of pressure by partnering a
black presenter with a white presenter. For the FXI this is a clear case or
demonstration of suppression of freedom of expression.

Another finding was that there is ignorance on the side of advertisers. Many
seem not to understand community radio and the potential that it has to
attract listeners. What is interesting for the FXI is that while advertisers
might claim ignorance for this new communication medium they (advertisers)
have on the other hand discovered new mediums to place adverts. There is an
increased use of outdoors advertising (billboards, taxis, trains, sports,
etc). It can be argued that advertisers are not simply ignorant but they
might be prejudiced against community radio.

There are also cases of unscrupulous agencies and brokers who take advantage
of community radio management, most of whom do not understand the somewhat
complicated processes of advertising. It was found that in some cases
agencies did not pay stations all the revenue that is due to them. The NCRF
made us aware that there was a news agency that used to act as a brokerage.
What they did was to introduce a barter system where they would provide
stations with news and ask stations to allow them to enter into negotiations
with advertisers. Thus they exchanged news with advertising revenue. The
injustice here is that no value was placed on the news that they were
providing to the stations. It is possible that they received more revenue as
compared to the value of the news that they were selling to the stations.

Lastly, many stations complained that the government does not support them.
What stations are asking for is not donations or subsidies from the
government. Rather, stations are arguing that what the government can do,
through different departments and the GCIS, is to enter into partnerships
with stations for programme sponsorship. An example can be a programme on
Aids prevention. This will assist stations not only to meet some of the
recurrent costs but also to be more relevant in addressing the needs of the
community by being informative and educative.

Over and above making these points, the FXI/NCRF Policy Unit submission
noted that stations are gradually be made to rely on advertising and
therefore become more like commercial stations. The danger with this
approach is that it leads to the commercialisation of community media, a
medium that must be kept as much in the hands of the public as possible.

Section Two- The Commodification of the Media

The second argument advanced by the Policy Unit was around what we see as an
increasing commodification of the media. In advancing this observation we
focused on the developments around the corporatisation of the SABC. Drawing
on the experience of the US public broadcast services, the Unit argued that
over-reliance on advertising revenue for the continued functioning and
growth of the public broadcaster, enforced mainly by the macro-economic
policies of GEAR, will lead to the SABC loosing its character of as a public
broadcaster where the three main functions which are, education,
information, and entertainment, are balance.

The SABC is also undergoing a corporatisation process that is characterised
by commercialisation. This turns the SABC into a business entity rather than
a public institution. Such a development will ultimately compromise the
public mandate of the broadcaster. More than that it will lead to the SABC
being more alienated from the public, whose only value to the broadcaster
will be as taxpayers, whose taxes are used to finance the corporation, and
as payers of television licenses.

Lastly, we argued that there has not been any attempt to give more meaning
to public broadcasting by involving listeners (the public) in the affairs of
the SABC. This for us is a greater challenge that needs to be addressed.
This for us is what is lacking in the debate around racism in advertising.

Section Three- What Can Be Done

The third section of our submission was on what needs to be done to address
racism in the advertising industry.

Firstly, the industry needs to be monitored. While other stakeholders have
argued that a more representative body comprising of advertisers, marketers,
and the media, needs to be formed, we feel that such a body will be lacking
a very important component of the media circle, the listeners and readers.
Our concrete suggestion was that there is a need for a conscious effort to
bring in listeners into the picture, not just as peripheral players but
perhaps as the most central component of a 'watchdog' group. The main
function of this group will be to monitor and hold accountable all players
within the industry. Monitoring will include ensuring that there is
transformation within the industry itself and more importantly to ensure
that there is equity in terms of how adspend is placed in different media.
This body must be independent of government.

The GCIS can assist community radio stations by coordinating programme
sponsorship for various stations. See point 7 in section one.

The most important intervention mechanism will be to reverse the
macro-economic policies that force the state to reduce public spending for
the public broadcaster. The GEAR policy needs a rethink. This will require
that debates around the media (and advertising) need to be taken out to the
broader public. Failure to do so will mean that such debates remain elitist
and ignore the very people that the media is aimed at.

For the Policy Unit, the most important challenge is to popularise these
debates. The time has never been more opportune for us to ensure that
ordinary people gain ownership of the media, especially the public
broadcaster and community media.

The FXI/NCRF Policy Unit presentation was made by Console Tleane. A full
text of the presentation and the final research report will be made
available soon.

For further information contact:
Scotch Tagwireyi, Information and Communications Officer, Freedom of
Expression Institute: Phone 27 11 4038403 Cell 27 72 3572699 Fax 27 11
4038309