So, a British institution, which has been a part of Sunday for a hundred and sixty-eight years, is dead. I doubt it’ll be buried just yet – the post mortem will take a while.
Last Sunday saw the final edition of The News of the World and yesterday, its millions of readers would have had to find an alternative.
Now, I should say before I go any further, I haven’t read the paper in two decades – so quite frankly, I don’t miss it; but millions no doubt will. Could it have been saved? Maybe. Should it have been? Well, in my view (for what it’s worth), no.
I recently finished an audio-visual series on customer service, which included an episode on ‘Brand Brilliance – or Brand Suicide’. When this story first broke, I thought: ‘If ever there was a case of brand suicide, this is it!’ Although ‘brand execution’ is probably more accurate. Among all the pledges of support for senior executives – closely followed by the exit of said execs stage-left – closely followed by the announcement that the paper was to close and the ads taken out in other publications to apologize for the phone-hacking mess (or for being found out…?), the images that kept coming into my mind were of some dodgy paramilitary group disposing of someone who isn’t terribly important in the great scheme of things, but could pose a threat ‘to the greater good’ if left at large; or that same group, looking for mainstream acceptance, making sure that they’re seen to be taking swift and decisive action to rid the organization of ‘undesirables’. The question in both cases, of course, is: have they really tackled the problem from the roots, or just lopped off a rotten branch?
The News of the World may or may not have been a big part of your Sunday morning, but it was a shrinking element of News Corp’s operation – up against the same threats as the rest of the print media – changing consumer behaviour, falling ad revenues, shrinking market share etc. So, morality aside, it made perfect business sense to cut it loose now, for the sake of the wider organization – not least the BSkyB bid (which was still alive when the paper was killed off).
The week before last, before the execution was announced, advertisers were dropping out right, left and centre. At the time, some commentators were slightly scornful. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course, but I didn’t get it. As an individual, I don’t like putting money into organizations whose principles I don’t agree with – and I’m very suspicious of those who proclaim a principle, then align themselves with someone who doesn’t uphold it. Contrary to popular belief, businesspeople have moral standpoints too – and then there’s the business case. Mud sticks, as they say – and if you happen to be standing close to someone it’s being thrown at, some of it is quite likely to stick to you. Most of us don’t have the luxury of being able to dispose of a tainted brand to save something more valuable.
I’ve had to smile at some of the TV ads for the other Sunday papers this week. Call me synical, but I can’t help wondering how many of them are heaving a corporate sigh of relief and thinking: ‘PFEW! So glad it was Murdoch’s lot who got caught! While the heat’s on them, we’ve got time to tidy up here!’
The most important thing to come out of this whole sorry business for me is the reinforcement of the idea that however wealthy, successful and powerful an individual or corporation may be, actions have consequences. Cash and influence might talk – sometimes they shout – but there are some things they can’t drown out.