Media: Pay or not pay?
There is an ongoing, murmuring issue in health communication - do you pay for media time or not? The issues are difficult and interesting. Where do you stand and why?
In favour of paying is the argument that if you wish your media and communication products to be seen and heard, absorbed, discussed and have influence, then it is important to reach and engage the people you want through the channels and in the time slots that best meet your health communication goals. If that means, for example, paying Channel X or Radio Station Y for 30 minutes of prime time for your entertainment, news, current affairs, childrens, cartoon, music or whatever “show”, then so be it. That is just the cost of effective health communication.
The arguments against paying relate to both effective health communication and media development in a country.
From the health communication perspective, does paying for media time undermine the requirement for that health communication production to be high quality, resonant with the local context, generating of its own substantive audience and therefore attractive to the media company and possible advertisers. Those elements are a test of the relevance and quality of the health communication products themselves. Does paying undermine these elements or short-cut them in an undesirable way?
Related to media development the argument is that (a) the organizations that can pay are mainly the richer international orgs so they distort the market for local agencies and (b) rather than local media being responsive to and resonant with local and national voices, interests, themes, priorities, styles the payment process distorts and undercuts these really important elements of national media development.
1. Are there are other factors and issues at play?
2. What have you been doing and why?
3. Where do you stand on these issues?
Thanks - Warren
Comments
Cannot be addressed by a blanket policy
Like many aspects of development, this is a contextual issue which cannot be addressed by a blanket policy. Depending on the medium, it may realistically not have sufficient funds to absorb a lengthy interview or whatever. Thus, while not as exciting or generally useful, the medium continues with --perhaps--boring or simply entertainment programmes that are cheap. In other contexts, just like in any other sector, knowing the right people in particular media can gain one some free time.
Equal Access comment on 'pay or don't pay'
At Equal Access we use a mix of strategies on this issue, and though our main body of work is not currently on health, I believe the same factors apply to this as to our focus areas of peacebuilding, governance and women's and girls' rights.
Ideally we'd offer content, training, mentoring, coaching and equipment in return for airtime, as it seems to set a bad precedent to pay for airtime when the development issues being tackled are for the benefit of those very audiences. If the national or local governments can support the airtime then all the better - it's good that they are invested in their own development, and of course it reduces costs to the programs. If the broadcaster is a state-owned broadcaster then they really should not require airtime costs. However, the reality almost everywhere is that broadcasters prefer to be paid - who doesn't? So it's always a negotiation, and if you have something valuable to offer from that menu above, or perhaps also audience research data, then you might not pay, or you'll pay less.
Having said all that, we appreciate our media partners enormously and would not be able to work without them at all. So we don't enter every project with the express aim of not paying them. Rather we look at their situation, and see what is reasonable. It's hard to tell a community radio station in the Far North of Cameroon that you can't afford to pay them $100 per month when they know you really can, and they have the audience, and not you.
David Wood
VP of Programs
Equal Access
- Inicie sesión para enviar comentarios