How the fishing industry could employ public relations principles and techniques to combat a global threat posed by powerful pressure groups.
Few if any industries have been as beset with ongoing activism as the generality of the fishing industry in most of the developed world. A vicious cycle of bad media coverage, unfavorable public policies, negative advocacy from pressure groups, and consequential damaged reputation has, with growing momentum, conspired to undermine the vital interests of the industry.
Clearly, the industry’s lack of coherence translates into poor ability to communicate convincingly, which may further aggravate the situation.
As much as failing to take decisive action will be seen as abdication of responsibility, breaking out of a prolonged spiral of negativity will require tedious efforts. A reasonable degree of optimism, on the other hand, suggests that well-planned, timely, and skillfully implemented public relations strategies can help bring about change for the better.
After all, a sound analysis of the problem leads to the unmistakable conclusion that the fishing industry has a just cause, which in principle makes a whole arsenal of powerful public relations tools available for its use, provided sufficient funding will be obtained. Bearing in mind the vast number of fishing vessels still roaming the seas, it will arguably be perfectly possible to gather a sizeable proportion of the major operators under a common umbrella.
The implications are both multifaceted and ambitious — a recommended program of action would make use of extensive analyses and planning, reputation management, issues management, crisis communication, government relations, media relations, and stakeholder management. It should in brief involve the following:
• Creating a communication platform for the industry, focusing sharply on issues of shared interest;
• Setting up permanent public relations and public affairs functions;
• Devising effective response programs and plans to address urgent needs;
• Restoring trust and developing long-term relationships with key stakeholders.
Introduction
This report looks into the question of how the global fish catching industry — as primarily viewed from a North Atlantic perspective — could utilize corporate communication strategies to tackle a long-overdue issue of antagonistic advocacy, unduly restrictive management regimes, and unfavorable public image.
The purpose is to synthesize a clear and relevant picture from a complex situation in which a number of component elements and their interplay present a fairly significant challenge.
Based on industry and academic literature — as well as first-hand experience and personal interviews — key characteristics of the fishing industry will be discussed together with fisheries science and fisheries management, and related to public relations theory and practice.
For the sake of clarity, not all views will be presented in discussions about e.g. fisheries science and management. Instead, key alternative viewpoints will be considered, as these are seen to be in alignment with fishing interests.
Conclusive findings will be presented as recommendations.
A Fragmented Industry
While the context here is confined to the harvesting sector, anyone with a basic insight into commercial fishing will know that the world’s fishing fleets differ dramatically: according to geography and culture, level of capitalization and technology, access to trade infrastructure and seafood markets, types of species targeted and gear used, all of which are key determinants of vessel type, size, and characteristics such as ocean going capacity and catch efficiency.
For instance, in the northeast Atlantic, one of the world’s 19 major fishing areas as defined by the Fisheries and Aquaculture Department of FAO (the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization), there are several categories and subcategories of fishing fleets, listed by target species and technology (2008).
An estimated 20,000 ocean going vessels, together with hundreds of thousands of decked inshore vessels and two to three million smaller, undecked boats, catch a combined 100 million metric tons of fish per year according to UN figures (FAO 2002).
Large vs. Small
As in other industries, there has traditionally been a certain divide between large-scale and small-scale fishing operations, typically at odds in terms of access to inshore waters as well as in the distribution key applied to the regulation of the resource: the small and many feel threatened by the financial muscle and political influence of the large and few, who in turn tend to view the former as another source of restrictions and potential trouble.
Concentration of Ownership
Taking such divisions to socio-economic and political levels, Ben-Yami (2003) and Allain (2007) warn against societal disruptions resulting from privatization of fishing rights, a trend discerned since the late 1980s in e.g. Canada and Iceland.
Rights and Commons
Allain (2007) identifies fallacies adopted with modern fisheries management’s adherence to ideas expressed by Hardin (1968) — the underlying assumption being that fishing communities are unable to self-regulate, prone to some shortsighted selfishness which must lead to depletion of the resource, necessitating external control either by paternalistic state power or by large commercial corporations.
Management and Science
During the decades following World War II, fisheries science was introduced to public fisheries management in North America, Europe, and elsewhere. According to Jón Kristjánsson (personal communication. 10 June 2005), the new approaches to fisheries management were initially met with curiosity and expectations by the industry, as they held promises of increasing catches and profitability through the aid of scientific methods; however, relations gradually deteriorated between, on the one hand, fisheries scientists and fisheries managers and, on the other, fishermen, vessel operators, and fishing communities.
Mistrust
Central to negative sentiment in the fishing industry is the observation that cutting back on fishing by reducing catch quotas or otherwise imposing restrictive measures has, with few exceptions, been the sole content of all advice given by the established networks of fisheries scientists to their subscribing governments.
The issue of mistrust is further associated with perceived lack of communication between e.g. established fisheries science and commercial fishermen. Haggan, Neis and Baird (2007) point to the professional knowledge of fishermen — and the fact that there are indeed examples of good cooperation between them and scientists — even if there still might be a long way to go in terms of raising communication standards. A feeling of being subjected to a combination of arrogant neglect and abusive public policies has long been detectable among fishermen and their industry representatives, who have grown used to seeing their business and operating conditions changed on a yearly basis, often by the enforcement of drastic measures. They seem to sense that even if their livelihoods are dependent on their own in-depth knowledge of commercial fisheries, that expertise isn’t being taken very seriously.
Criticisms
A few independent scientists and consultants have expressed skepticism toward the advice regularly given by the officially established fisheries science organizations — such as the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, “the world’s largest marine science and advisory body” (ICES 2008) — and the corresponding policies pursued by their subscribing governments.
Read more of this report (pdf)...
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Monday, March 2, 2009
Broadcast News as a Commodity
To what extent can we view broadcast news as a commodity within today’s global society?
“News is not a commodity — it is a vital part of our democracy,” declared The Independent on Sunday in the headline of an article written by Mark Thompson (2008), the BBC’s Director-General. The world’s most revered public service broadcasting institution quite correctly — perhaps as a matter of policy — refuses to reduce its product to a mere commodity. Yet a quick analysis of the bulk of news and related content coming from leading international broadcasters will immediately raise the question of news commoditization. It will be likely to lead to the observation that the overall quality of mainstream broadcast news — the perceived relevance to public interest — has been deteriorating for any number of years, effectively causing a crisis of credibility. Arguably, the blurring of the boundaries between news and entertainment, information and advertising, together with the media’s peculiar interest in singing their own praises, does little to help the situation.
The huge volumes of news made available every day and the overwhelming feeling of sameness often experienced by the news consumer easily invoke the concept of commodity. But before we embark on an exploration of this issue, we must ask ourselves what a commodity is. A standard dictionary lookup will define it as: ‘a mass-produced unspecialized product’ or ‘a good or service whose wide availability typically leads to smaller profit margins and diminishes the importance of factors other than price’ (Merriam-Webster 2008).
In order to understand the issue of broadcast news commoditization in a global context, we need to identify and study the consequences of some of the conditioning factors. One of these can be seen as an overarching theme: globalization and history — the forces of cultural, political, social, and economic change. Underlying factors include: television’s historic relationships and affiliations with radio and cinema; the development of video, cable and satellite technologies; free markets, transnational competition, and ownership concentration; cross-media publishing and promotion; the fusion of information and entertainment, of advertising and editorial content; marketing needs and dependency on audience ratings; public service vis-á-vis economics; 24-hour news channels and narrowcasting; streaming audio and video, mobile radio and television and the astonishing development and worldwide distribution of digital ICT.
On the whole, a distinct and seemingly direct cause of news commoditization came with two relatively recent revolutions that sent news supply sky rocketing: rolling news broadcasting and online news and information, much of it freely accessible.
McNair (2003) gives an account of the development of news media in the UK, including the transition from radio to television as the news medium of choice for the masses. Back in the 1950s, the presentation of TV news resembled the already established tradition of radio news while reflecting the educational tone of the day. To the point of kinship with the world of film, Curran and Seaton (2003) relate how technical staff for early television often consisted of people with a background in cinema — contributing to a clash of cultures. Before long, as Finnegan (2008) outlines, American television broke away from its radio roots and learned to make use of its visual advantage, taking a pivotal role in the rise of the entertainment culture during the years and decades that followed. While entertainment gradually gained prominence, a celebrity culture likewise became apparent among national TV news presenters, spawning a new meta-category of news about the news.
People are slowly but surely turning away from TV news. Roberts (2008) points out that the major networks in the US have lost an average 1 million viewers annually over the past 25 years — an overall trend that seems to reflect a steady decline with temporary reversals at the occurrence of extraordinary events. On such events, Bauder (2008) reports that more than a record 43 million American households watched the 4th November 2008 presidential election returns on television, whilst another 27 million followed the event on the internet. The historic election of Barack Hussein Obama was witnessed around the world and clearly had a global impact.
The rise of 24/7 rolling news was initiated with Turner Broadcasting System’s 1980 launch of the Cable News Network. Its unorthodox format departed decisively from the traditional studio-centered news presentation with a cost-efficient operation and an informal style and with key emphasis placed on live coverage from scenes of events. CNN changed the face of broadcast news and, as its success unfolded, the established TV networks attempted to follow suit but initially failed (McNair 2003; Turner 2008). Today there are several rolling news channels with current affairs and documentary programs — CNN, BBC World, Fox News, to name some — and scores of other channels dedicated to narrowly defined markets, such as Bloomberg Television, Discovery Channel, MTV, etc. A new generation of rolling news channels — notably Al Jazeera, Telesur, and France 24 — are now seen to represent a ‘contra-flow’ to Anglo-American influence in the arena of global media communications (Thussu 2007).
Back in the 1980s and 1990s, and even into the 21st century, a wave of privatization and deregulation took place in broadcasting across national borders, spurred on by the dominance of free market ideas. This was intertwined with technological breakthroughs in video, cable and satellite communications, all of which had vast implications for the development of broadcast media (Curran and Seaton 2003).
Industry consolidation with mergers and acquisitions followed, generating a hostile business environment for independent news broadcasters, and resulting in ownership concentration with fears of corporate censorship and uniformity in the news. The 1996 acquisition of Turner by the largest player in the global media industry, TimeWarner — formed in 1990 with the takeover of Time by Warner Bros. — was but one of a number of deals, the net result of which has been that little more than a handful of conglomerates control most of the entire world of news and entertainment media: TimeWarner, Disney, NBC Universal, Vivendi Universal, News Corporation, Viacom, Sony, Bertelsmann (Branston and Stafford 2006). This remains a major concern and the subject of debate at all levels, including at the World Electronic Media Forum (WBU 2007). In the US, for instance, Scott (2004) criticizes the Federal Communications Commission for relaxing broadcast ownership limits, echoing concerns of media reform organization Free Press (2008).
Other noteworthy developments in the media industry included Microsoft’s 1996 entry into broadcast news through MSNBC — a joint venture with NBC — and Google’s acquisition of YouTube in 2006. Google and Microsoft have developed advanced internet news delivery services in cooperation with a wide range of news providers, offering content that includes text and pictures as well as streaming audio and video, and both companies hold stakes in mobile communications through the Windows Mobile and Android platforms, respectively (Microsoft 2008; Open Handset Alliance 2008).
Read more of this essay (pdf)...
“News is not a commodity — it is a vital part of our democracy,” declared The Independent on Sunday in the headline of an article written by Mark Thompson (2008), the BBC’s Director-General. The world’s most revered public service broadcasting institution quite correctly — perhaps as a matter of policy — refuses to reduce its product to a mere commodity. Yet a quick analysis of the bulk of news and related content coming from leading international broadcasters will immediately raise the question of news commoditization. It will be likely to lead to the observation that the overall quality of mainstream broadcast news — the perceived relevance to public interest — has been deteriorating for any number of years, effectively causing a crisis of credibility. Arguably, the blurring of the boundaries between news and entertainment, information and advertising, together with the media’s peculiar interest in singing their own praises, does little to help the situation.
The huge volumes of news made available every day and the overwhelming feeling of sameness often experienced by the news consumer easily invoke the concept of commodity. But before we embark on an exploration of this issue, we must ask ourselves what a commodity is. A standard dictionary lookup will define it as: ‘a mass-produced unspecialized product’ or ‘a good or service whose wide availability typically leads to smaller profit margins and diminishes the importance of factors other than price’ (Merriam-Webster 2008).
In order to understand the issue of broadcast news commoditization in a global context, we need to identify and study the consequences of some of the conditioning factors. One of these can be seen as an overarching theme: globalization and history — the forces of cultural, political, social, and economic change. Underlying factors include: television’s historic relationships and affiliations with radio and cinema; the development of video, cable and satellite technologies; free markets, transnational competition, and ownership concentration; cross-media publishing and promotion; the fusion of information and entertainment, of advertising and editorial content; marketing needs and dependency on audience ratings; public service vis-á-vis economics; 24-hour news channels and narrowcasting; streaming audio and video, mobile radio and television and the astonishing development and worldwide distribution of digital ICT.
On the whole, a distinct and seemingly direct cause of news commoditization came with two relatively recent revolutions that sent news supply sky rocketing: rolling news broadcasting and online news and information, much of it freely accessible.
McNair (2003) gives an account of the development of news media in the UK, including the transition from radio to television as the news medium of choice for the masses. Back in the 1950s, the presentation of TV news resembled the already established tradition of radio news while reflecting the educational tone of the day. To the point of kinship with the world of film, Curran and Seaton (2003) relate how technical staff for early television often consisted of people with a background in cinema — contributing to a clash of cultures. Before long, as Finnegan (2008) outlines, American television broke away from its radio roots and learned to make use of its visual advantage, taking a pivotal role in the rise of the entertainment culture during the years and decades that followed. While entertainment gradually gained prominence, a celebrity culture likewise became apparent among national TV news presenters, spawning a new meta-category of news about the news.
People are slowly but surely turning away from TV news. Roberts (2008) points out that the major networks in the US have lost an average 1 million viewers annually over the past 25 years — an overall trend that seems to reflect a steady decline with temporary reversals at the occurrence of extraordinary events. On such events, Bauder (2008) reports that more than a record 43 million American households watched the 4th November 2008 presidential election returns on television, whilst another 27 million followed the event on the internet. The historic election of Barack Hussein Obama was witnessed around the world and clearly had a global impact.
The rise of 24/7 rolling news was initiated with Turner Broadcasting System’s 1980 launch of the Cable News Network. Its unorthodox format departed decisively from the traditional studio-centered news presentation with a cost-efficient operation and an informal style and with key emphasis placed on live coverage from scenes of events. CNN changed the face of broadcast news and, as its success unfolded, the established TV networks attempted to follow suit but initially failed (McNair 2003; Turner 2008). Today there are several rolling news channels with current affairs and documentary programs — CNN, BBC World, Fox News, to name some — and scores of other channels dedicated to narrowly defined markets, such as Bloomberg Television, Discovery Channel, MTV, etc. A new generation of rolling news channels — notably Al Jazeera, Telesur, and France 24 — are now seen to represent a ‘contra-flow’ to Anglo-American influence in the arena of global media communications (Thussu 2007).
Back in the 1980s and 1990s, and even into the 21st century, a wave of privatization and deregulation took place in broadcasting across national borders, spurred on by the dominance of free market ideas. This was intertwined with technological breakthroughs in video, cable and satellite communications, all of which had vast implications for the development of broadcast media (Curran and Seaton 2003).
Industry consolidation with mergers and acquisitions followed, generating a hostile business environment for independent news broadcasters, and resulting in ownership concentration with fears of corporate censorship and uniformity in the news. The 1996 acquisition of Turner by the largest player in the global media industry, TimeWarner — formed in 1990 with the takeover of Time by Warner Bros. — was but one of a number of deals, the net result of which has been that little more than a handful of conglomerates control most of the entire world of news and entertainment media: TimeWarner, Disney, NBC Universal, Vivendi Universal, News Corporation, Viacom, Sony, Bertelsmann (Branston and Stafford 2006). This remains a major concern and the subject of debate at all levels, including at the World Electronic Media Forum (WBU 2007). In the US, for instance, Scott (2004) criticizes the Federal Communications Commission for relaxing broadcast ownership limits, echoing concerns of media reform organization Free Press (2008).
Other noteworthy developments in the media industry included Microsoft’s 1996 entry into broadcast news through MSNBC — a joint venture with NBC — and Google’s acquisition of YouTube in 2006. Google and Microsoft have developed advanced internet news delivery services in cooperation with a wide range of news providers, offering content that includes text and pictures as well as streaming audio and video, and both companies hold stakes in mobile communications through the Windows Mobile and Android platforms, respectively (Microsoft 2008; Open Handset Alliance 2008).
Read more of this essay (pdf)...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)