Kaieteur News survived the ten-year drought
Peeping Tom
Kaieteur News
January 17, 2007
The liberal and conservative western democracies believe in what they call freedom of the press. For those democracies, the less involved the State is in ownership and the affairs of the press, the freer is the media.
The establishment of Stabroek News was part of a project to improve Guyana's human rights record to match the opening up of the economy to market forces. The Stabroek News was born, therefore, out of an experiment to make us a western-styled democracy where the government is encouraged to liberalise the media.
And this is why every since 1989, the editorial policy of the Stabroek News has been in support of a reduced role for government in the media, including an end to the State monopoly over the radio.
It is however a paradox that the very forces that view Government involvement in the media as a limiting condition for press freedom are the very ones who believe that the government has an obligation to support the private media through State advertisements.
Why is it wrong for the State to own media houses but right for the proceeds of the State to be used to upkeep private media houses? Why is it that the government is encouraged to get out of the media but the very people who are urging them to get out are insinuating an obligation of the government to support private media houses through the placement of advertisements?
On the one hand, the State is told to keep out of the media and then on the other hand it is being asked to share out State advertisements in an appropriate way.
Just what is considered appropriate? Why should Government have a policy to spread advertisements when such a policy may conflict with the marketing goals and may place strain on resource use? Since when is the placement of State advertisements guided by considerations other than economic considerations?
The placement of State advertisements has always been a commercial decision. Why should the government simply spray advertisements all around simply to be seen as being fair to all media houses when this practice may be costly to the government and not provide value for money?
The government is under no obligation as a matter of policy to give each media house an “appropriate share of advertisements.” In making decisions as where to place advertisements, the government has to be guided by marketing objectives.
Why should the government have the same advertisements in three different newspapers simply to reach the same target audience? Why spend the same money two times when you can spend it one time and reach the same audience? It is like paying two different airlines to get to the same destination.
It is a waste of taxpayers' money to be advertising in three newspapers when you can place your ads in the Kaieteur News which reaches more people than all of the other two newspapers combined.
Market intelligence suggests that the Kaieteur News reaches more people and has a wider coverage than Stabroek News. When the Peeper says more he means far more.
There are, of course, some small newspapers that have niche markets and which cater for select target audiences. The Chronicle, for example, is still read by people who have an interest in certain matters such as the passage of transports and the notification of civil proceedings in relation to matters such as divorce.
There are also small newspapers, such as the Mirror, and when it used to be published, the New Nation, which have niche markets.
Kaieteur News is, without question, the leading newspaper in Guyana both in terms of its coverage of the news and its circulation. This has been so for years. In fact, its circulation far outstrips that of the Stabroek News. The same target market that the Stabroek News reaches is also reached by the Kaieteur News, which also reaches those who do not read either the Stabroek News or Chronicle.
Why, therefore, should the government advertise in the Stabroek News when it can advertise in the Kaieteur News and reach far more persons, including the target market for the Stabroek News?
From a commercial standpoint, the government therefore has to consider whether it makes sense advertising in both the Stabroek and Kaieteur News. For years it has been doing this but now, because of what is said to be an examination of the returns on advertisements, it has opted not to place as many advertisements in Stabroek News.
It is easy for any newspaper that has lost a major client to cry foul and in the case of State advertisements, to lose sight of commercial and financial considerations. It is easy to jump up and state that the government is suppressing freedom of the press and punishing the media when it changes its commercial policies.
It is much more difficult for that newspaper to ask itself why it surrendered its supremacy as the leading newspaper in Guyana.
The government has pointed to the period when Kaieteur News was in its embryonic stage and rarely got advertisements from the State. Rare is an understatement. When Kaieteur News started as a weekly newspaper, even though we outsold our competitors, we never got State advertisements.
Even when Kaieteur News began to publish a daily newspaper and enjoyed the largest circulation and the widest coverage, it did not obtain one single State advertisement. For the first ten years of our existence, we did not get State advertisements.
For ten years, this newspaper experienced a drought of State advertisements. Yet, no one said that the Declaration of Chapultepec was being violated through the withholding of advertisements to this newspaper.
Kaieteur News is accountable to its shareholders for its circulation. We had noted that our sister newspaper had started to declare its audited circulation when it suited that paper. It was not and still is not, I believe, this newspaper's intention to get into a public fray with our competitors as to who is selling more newspapers.
However after it became clear that Stabroek News's market share was dwindling and Kaieteur News was the number one selling newspaper with the widest coverage, the Stabroek News stopped declaring its circulation.
Kaieteur News got to the top not through patronage; it got there in spite of the denial of State advertisements. It got to the top because it accepted the challenges. It got there because the ordinary citizens kept faith in the newspaper. Despite struggling for ten long years without State ads, Kaieteur News persevered.
When others were referring to this newspaper as a tabloid, we continued to bring the news to the Guyanese people and the hard work paid off, whereby today not only are we receiving State advertisements, but also our share of advertisements from the private sector has increased.
Yesterday the Stabroek News carried two advertisements from LEAP, which is a Government of Guyana and European Union project; there was also another advertisement from the Bank of Guyana. The Kaieteur News did not get those ads and I saw no complaints. All that Kaieteur News got for yesterday were two small ads, one from the Ministry of Agriculture and one from the Transport and Harbours Department which collectively utilized less column inches than the Stabroek News.
We will not celebrate the difficulties that our sister newspaper face. It has never been the intention of Kaieteur News to gloat over the troubles of others. But neither should Kaieteur News allow itself to be anyone's scapegoat.