by Thinus Ferreira
Sometimes it's not just those that are first who end up being last. Sometimes it's everybody.
Imagine something that's supposed to be received by everybody concurrently at the same time, but being parcelled out in a piecemeal approach over gaps in time.
That's been the case - and continuing - with general TV programming information from The Walt Disney Company Africa's FOX division.
Instead of the media in South Africa all being treated the same and receiving basic programming information about shows at the same time, FOX has decided to send certain media and journalists information first - and hours later to the rest.
To be clear: We're not talking about exclusive information, exclusive breaking news or a story that a journalist had put work and effort to source, or an exclusively arranged interview or story. It's basic, normal run-of-the-mill TV programming information press releases from Disney Africa's FOX Africa division about shows on FOX (DStv 125 / StarSat 131).
Programming information and announcements from Killing Eve to The Walking Dead on FOX are deliberately sent to certain media first and then hours later to others.
This is wrong.
It's also highly destructive. This PR practice is not just highly corrosive and damaging to FOX's existing media relationships within the South African media but also to the trust relationship with journalists who very well see what's going on, talk among each other about it, but stay quiet.
In Dante's great Inferno, he wrote that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who during a moral problem, maintain their neutrality. So here's TVwithThinus speaking out publicly.
It's bad when journalists and TV critics who are the media and who are in the media, (have to) read or hear about the news and programming of any TV channel, in this case FOX, not from FOX directly, but elsewhere - especially so if it's from any so-called "competition".
Very little grates journalists and the media as much as having to read, hear or see information relevant to you and your readers and audiences, in or on a rival publication, platform or media outlet and then having to suddenly try and follow it up - wondering why you didn't get the email or basic press release.
It causes uncertainty, anxiety and resentment and makes the media wonder why publicists or people who are part of real-world publicity teams and who say they want to have a relationship with you, have apparently deliberately withheld that information and have not sent it to you.
When you can no longer trust that as a journalist, publication or media outlet that you're going to hear from and get the same fair, basic treatment and information from a company, for instance, TV channel A or B, because of perceived marketing and publicity favouritism, it not just stokes resentment under the press who perceive themselves to be placed as "less important" later in the queue but also actively makes them want to bother less using any of that information.
It's also damaging to FOX that is losing out on possible exposure when journalists, TV critics and media outlets decide to bin press releases, programming information and choice quotes from executives like Evert van der Veer, vice president, media networks, The Walt Disney Company Africa, that they otherwise would have used.
It also hurts the TV viewer who gets less access, negatively impacting the content discovery process.
With less possible stories and articles and with less platforms circulating the press release or parts of it because they are essentially forced to take an editorial decision not to run it to prevent being perceived as "also-ran", there is a dramatically smaller chance for a potential viewer or fan of a show to find, see and to read and engage with the information put out by, for instance, FOX.
The law of rapidly diminishing returns is at play here.
Take online for instance: There's less and less incentive to use and copy-and-paste or rework what is essentially the basic same press release information without anything else to add hours after it's already been published somewhere on the internet - an eternity in the online news world.
It's ridiculous and non-sensical to have an expectation that a lot of media are suddenly going to put in the effort and time to work on information already "out there" hours ago from an "old" press release, simply because of the diminished return on the "investment" needed to do so.
Besides a lower click rate (information seekers already found it elsewhere), diminished monetisation of the news content, and having to give precious editorial space and time and effort to just "repeat" something, no journalists or media outlet really wants their story to show up on page 15 of a Google search simply because they only got the information hours later and already had to click and read the same information on page 1 of a Google search.
I first asked FOX in May this year what's going on and why it's sending basic TV programming press release information to some media, and hours later to the rest.
The response was that FOX sometimes makes an "agreement" with a particular media publication to announce something exclusively first, "to ensure that a show is announced in a big way, after which all other media receive it at the same time".
The big problem is that we're not talking about any exclusive information but basic programming information.
FOX's tiered media and staggered rollout approach turn everyone into losers - including FOX - when the media that FOX communicates with, perceives unfair treatment and journalists don't understand why it's happening.
In George Orwell's Animal Farm all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
It would serve all the animals better if the Fox farm went from "more equal" to just settling for plain old equal.
