Cleavage goes to battle

Source:  Turkish TV presenter fired over low-cut dress after criticism

How do you know whether a regime that frees women to wear Islamic headscarves at work is liberal and furthering democracy, or Islamist and restricting it?

The question concerns Turkey's government, which in the space of a few days has ended a headscarf ban for civil servants (except in the judiciary and security services), but also caused a female TV music-show presenter to be fired for showing too much cleavage.

The headscarf ban was a piece of unabashed social engineering introduced in the 1920s to make Turkey, the rump of the former Ottoman Empire and Islamic Caliphate, secular. If you are liberal and not Islamophobic, ending the ban is a good thing: Women should not be excluded from the workplace just because they are devout and believe this requires covering their hair, period.

But what if the change -- which Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan introduced as part of a broad "democratization" package -- is part of a wider plan of social re-engineering, this time designed to impinge on the liberties of non-religious conservatives? If so, the numerous cases in which women were discriminated against, fired or passed over for promotion for wearing a headscarf even outside of work would now be repeated in reverse: Women who don't wear headscarves to work, and men whose wives don't cover their hair, will be discriminated against, fired and passed over for promotion.

Turkey's secularists say this is already happening to men whose wives show their locks. That's hard to prove, but the real issue is trust -- secularists believe the worst of Erdogan's intentions. Are they right?

The firing of a TV presenter, Gozde Kansu, this week is indicative. Huseyin Celik, spokesman for the ruling Justice and Development Party attacked Kansu (without actually naming her) for wearing a dress with a plunging neckline while on the air. A few days later, she was fired. There are a few points to make.

First, Celik should watch more Italian TV -- he would then understand that Kansu is a model of shy decorum. Second, Celik's words were as follows: “We don’t intervene against anyone, but this is too much. It is unacceptable,” according to Hurriyet Daily News. He later complained that it wasn't his fault that she was fired, and he had a right to express his opinions.

None of this is credible. Celik knows what "unacceptable" means; he knew that Kansu was on ATV television, which belongs to a company called Calik Holding; and he knew that Calik's chief executive officer is Erdogan's son-in-law, Berat Albayrak. There is no coincidence or unintended consequence here. Celik wants to re-engineer Turkish TV. 

All points to imminent death of mainstream media

(Marketingmagazine.com.my) – The story that The Star had pissed off its readers with its anti-opposition bashing advertising campaign during the last general election for MCA is overrated or underrated depends who you talk to. But based on results, it is arguably the most unsuccessful advertising campaign in the history of the Malaysian media industry.

So no matter how you interpret the latest Nielsen's 2Q-2013 Consumer & Media View Report on dropping readership, the writing is now on the wall.

Total readership for 15 news dailies fell by 7% according to various sources, compared to the same period last year.

Nanyang hit a low of -42%, Kosmo -37% and The Star down almost 20% for second quarter 2013. The only English daily that upped its readership is the New Straits Times at 4%.
An unscientific source, my newspaper delivery boy, told me The Star's take-up dropped 30%. But what does he know? The Nielsen Report does however say that the Sunday Star has dropped over 30% in readership.

Let's not get too carried away with the numbers even though that's all media planners would probably look at. And since I've not had the chance to bump into my good friend Richard Hall of Nielsen Malaysia, we can make a few assumptions for advertisers and marketers to ponder about.

Readers who are angry will not return, the DNA of a daily reader goes against this happening. And angry readers do more harm, as they talk bad about the paper they left. So where have these missing readers gone? We read the news every hour and not just every morning as we continue to adapt to multi-screen behaviour every day. Does this mean the readers have gone forever to online sources? We know RM600 million a year of Classified adex has gone to online portals.

While newspaper readership dropped, I would not rush to assume that Online replaced newspapers even though news websites raked an increase of 20% from March to May this year, it is all relative. A home will always have a daily newspaper in it.

This brings me to the English newspapers that are not included in the Nielsen Report: the Sun and the Malay Mail. They merit thought. Without sounding too simplistic, if The Star's readership is 1.7 million per day* (based on 300,000 copies) that means a 20% drop would translate into a loss of 340,000 readers. Now who would't want to court these 340,000 habitual newspaper readers? I know advertisers are gung ho about reaching them.

Which probably explains the recent flurry of news titles, revamp exercises and marketing innovations by competitors who are moving at the speed of light as this opportunity may never come again. The Edge's fz.com is also said to be readying a print version...

Don't forget theSun already runs 300,000 copies a day (some pundits say this has reached saturation point for a free paper). But advertisers love it for its crisp handy content and you couldn't possibly pack a whack to hurt someone on the road or home.

However the Malay Mail circulates at 100,000 a day and its recently launch Weekly Runner at 200,000 copies, seems to be on the cusp of a surge. Their content can endear to the disappointed 340,000 and if the Malay Mail increases its readership by even 200,000, that's a huge deal for advertisers.


Maybe then, some of the 350,000 millionaires who make up The Star's readers may also cross over!

Journey To Magnificence

Why must I visit Marina Bay Sands again? Well, who wouldn’t visit one of the world’s most majestic and magnificent pieces of architecture again and again?

Three hourglass-shape towers curving upward, each 57 stories tall, connected at the top by an ocean liner looking structure that is host to a lush park 57 stories into the sky. High above the city, the 3,900-person capacity Sands SkyPark has restaurants, lounges, overlook posts, and an infinity swimming pool whose water meets the Singapore sky. It is there for one’s pleasure, surprise and delight.

Consider the Petronas Twin Towers. Think about the Roman Coliseum, the London’s Shard, the Eiffel Tower, the Sydney Opera House or even Johor’s Legoland. All of these structures were built to serve a purpose. And, when they were finished, they became global icons.

Now consider the global icons of service. How were they built? What purpose did building a service culture serve? And at what point does an iconic service culture take a life of its own?

What does it take to build an icon? How do you create a miracle out of cement, glass, and steel? These questions run through my mind each time I pass by the building sites of our new hospital facilities. The answers that come to me are positive visions of these facilities being enduring icons of uplifting service culture, while being an architecture showpiece in the community.

My first experience at the Marina Bay Sands was attending the JCI Practicum held at its massive multilevel Convention Centre which has as its foundation, an enormous shopping mall lined with 300 designer stores, more than 60 F&B outlets, a casino, an ice-skating rink, a world-class museum and two spectacular theatres.

I had to visit Marina Bay Sands again – on my wedding anniversary. I wanted my wife to be in awe. The unique architecture can impress just about anyone.

So my wife and I made the journey from KLIA to Changi Ariport. The experience at Changi Airport was amazing. Along the way to Marina Bay Sands, I wondered what would happen if we don’t receive magnificent service at one of the most magnificent resorts in the world. Imagine how quickly the romance of the trip could be squashed if the check-in line took too long? Or, if the bellman wasn’t friendly when delivering our bags? Or, if upon entering our room, we didn’t find it impeccable, with every amenity in place?

On the day of our arrival, we had dinner at one of the many fine restaurants at Marina Bay Sands. The food was awesome! The view of the Esplanade was spectacular! The waiter went out of his way to make recommendations for cocktails to pair with our dinner selections. All perfect, right?

I asked the waiter a few questions: What time does the museum open in the morning? And can you tell us how to get tickets for The Lion King theatre show? What if the waiter had replied, “I’m sorry, I don’t know anything about those things. I only work here in the restaurant.”?

Magnificent service? Well, it’s not horrible for the waiter at a restaurant not to know the operating hours of the museum or the ticketing details for a famous show.

But that waiter made our evening even more delightful. He responded with a smile, “The museum is fabulous. And there is an amazing Salvador Dali exhibit on display there right now. It opens at 10.00am till 10.00pm every night, even on holidays. And the tickets for the Lion King? I saw it myself. It’s great!. The show starts at 8.00 every night, except Mondays and on weekends there’s a matinee at 2.00pm. I can contact the concierge if you would like tickets.”

I could imagine what is required to have such waiters: a common service vision that spans the property, the wide range of product knowledge a waiter must master, and the active cooperation of people and systems across so many departments.

I wondered if the CEO of Marina Bay Sands simply sent out a memo that said, “TREAT THE CUSTOMER WELL.” How does the organization build an iconic service culture when new staff members join the company in hordes every day?

Winning service cultures that we hear about could have been formed by the organization’s struggle to compete, or to solve persistent problem. Some could have been motivated by ambitious goals to achieve, mergers to complete or new markets to penetrate and conquer.

And some could have been simply inspired by people who saw the world through a wider lens – who believed in creating the greatest service culture as a purpose greater than themselves.