|
The advert inviting tenderers interested in rebranding PBS has raised many eyebrows. One can forgive any cynical comment, coming so close to the disastrous branding exercise of the Malta Tourism Authority. But this exercise too seems doomed to fail at its inception.
Brand strategists seem to have lost the whole purpose of any branding exercise, namely that one has got to have something to sell before making one’s presence felt in the marketplace. The PBS brand is poor. Comparisons with the party television stations make it equally weak. Its brand loyalty, if at all, is only due to the inexistence of a strong private competitor. Opening up to competition would immediately show up the shortcomings of the present national service, which shows little loyalty to its audience and much attention to the interests of the two parties, well served by a servile Broadcasting Authority, which simply maintains the status quo.
A rebranding exercise risks being simply a cosmetic exercise where logos are changed and jingles are reinvented. Simple packaging. Pure fluff. Rather than a rebranding exercise all energy needs to be addressed towards an overhaul of the station with radical changes made. A golden opportunity may have been lost when the October schedule was launched. This was a case where the new wares of public broadcasting could have been flaunted. New investigative programmes and a probing news service could have started changing perceptions about the station.
After confidence would have been won, the time to engage in a so-called rebranding exercise could have been started in earnest. This was not to be, instead after just the first week, we are given much of the same. Reality shows, drama, quizzes and teleshopping.
This newspaper questions whether the government is at all committed to public broadcasting. This commitment, if present, needs to manifest itself with radical changes. It is not enough to believe, it is all a question of having the raw courage to introduce change. The way forward is a BBC-type of board of governors who are the custodians of the public trust. A group of level headed persons capable of setting ground rules and standards. In no way interfering in the administration or day-to-day matters these persons should simply ensure that informed reporting is broadcasted allowing persons to draw their own conclusion on what is going on around us.
In the absence of this culture change this tender risks being much ado about nothing. Government is ill advised if it feels that the state of public broadcasting is only a matter of concern for a hand full of media junkies.
Budget expectations
While welcoming the positive date chosen to present the budget far away from the Christmas period, we sincerely hope that the budget paves the way for sound economic management. Our political system, the parochial character of the political class and the proximity of a general election all augur against.
This government’s main legacy of reducing the deficit should not be thrown to the wind. The present finances of government are far from healthy inspite of certain noticeable improvements. Nor should government be too perturbed by the deliberate raising of expectations of the labour party. This is part of the political game. The fundamentals of government finances are still not in order. A bloated public service, an expensive regulatory system, a widening welfare gap and a tourism industry in crisis all call for sound economic management. The country needs fewer taxes and more reforms.
It is also the restrictive trading practises, which are inflating prices making Malta an expensive country to live in yet alone visit. This government needs to think nationally. Ordering the police not to uphold the regulations against hunters and keeping wardens out of sight seems to confirm the electoral mode this government has entered. We sincerely hope this lack of political clout does not manifest itself in the forthcoming budget. Placing nation before party is the essence of good government. Public finances need such a guarantee.
|
