Correcting the demise of media

Indeed, news in general seems to be slipping into a morass of sensationalism that closer resembles reality shows, where car chases take top billing over indepth international news coverage.

One has to wonder at times if there any hope for media, and is this yet another reason for popularity of internet-based news sites? And what, or who, is to control the bias all to often seen on internet media, where opinion is masqueraded as fact?

With that in mind, I'm publishing the following IESE article that looks at "The Marathon for Media Quality."

*****

At first glance, the only thing that two products as different as "The Economist" and "The Tonight Show" would seem to have in common is that both are produced in English. But there is actually more to it than that. Both have proud histories: The Economist has been engaging the intellect since 1843, while The Tonight Show has been a nightly staple in American living rooms for over 50 years. Furthermore, they are both examples of how a quality product, whether informative or entertainment based, can be profitable, become a benchmark and remain hard to beat.

In the book "Los contenidos de los medios de comunicacion. Calidad, rentabilidad y competencia" (Media Content: Quality, Profitability and Competition), by IESE's International Research Center for the Media Companies (CIEC) and the University of Navarra, communications professor Alfonso Sanchez-Tabernero considers how the blind pursuit of profits by some executives is having a watering-down effect on the content that gets delivered to the public.

Ask anyone and they'll likely tell you that things are going downhill. It's a perception shared not just in relation to the media, but by everyone from old-school Marxists, who mourn the loss of society acting for the common good, to certain conservative sectors of society, who decry the absence of ethics and morality in the public square.

To some degree, they're right. In examining the evolution of the media in recent years, it's true that people are spending more time and money on entertainment. The arrival of new competitors and technological innovations have made the media more dynamic - and the quest for profit is ever more present. The widespread perception that the public demands brainless products that appeal to the least common denominator leads media executives to deliver just that, in order to rake in hefty profits. This is the apparent market logic.

But are audiences really only interested in what's being offered to them?

Quality as a Barrier

Prof. Sanchez-Tabernero cites more than 30 examples from around the world showing how quality products have better odds of succeeding in the long run.

Sure, there's profit to made in being a bottom-feeder. Case in point: no sooner had "Playboy" claimed the "top shelf" than along came "Penthouse" to lower the bar with a smuttier girlie magazine. Penthouse may have put a dent in Playboy's profits, but once you start scraping the bottom of the barrel, where do you go next? Putting stock in such products, contrary to what it may seem, constitutes a high-risk business move.

At the other end of the scale are the aforementioned examples of The Economist and The Tonight Show. Both bank on top-notch talent and maintain an innovative spirit. Consequently, they have achieved widespread respect as well as high profitability. Raising the bar on quality means the competition will have a much tougher time getting into the market. Quality, therefore, becomes a barrier for competition, and the higher it is, the harder it will be to clear.

Since the 1990s, many theorists have recommended prioritizing the long term over immediate interests. Sanchez-Tabern