THE POWER OF PRINT IN THAILAND
Print is a powerful medium, and that's even more evident this week with the non-appearance of The Economist in Thailand.
The magazine's print edition was withheld from distribution for what the publishers describe as "sensitive" content surrounding the Thai royal family. That is the sixth time the publishers have taken this action since December 2009, and the seventh time in all the magazine has failed to appear with subscribers and on the shelves in the same time.
But links to the web versions of all stories, except one in December 2008, have remained accessible throughout. What does this say about the power of print, or at least its perceived value?
Do more people read The Economist in print than online in Thailand? Unlikely. Until recently the magazine was claiming just over 6,000 sales of the magazine in Thailand. I think more people will have read this particular story, or one of several Thai language translations that have appeared, online than will ever have seen the print edition.
Print is still king, at least in Thailand.
8 comments:
If "more people will have read this particular story [...] online than will ever have seen the print edition", why is print still king?
Matthew ...
What I meant is that print is still king in the sense that it's deemed powerful enough to halt distribution.
It's easier to halt print distribution than online distribution, and perhaps there's something about the visibility of the magazine on news-stands that 'they' don't like.
Bit of a tenuous link Andy.
Stopping distribution in Thailand is a decision made by The Economist, whereas blocking the online version would be done by the Thai MICT.
If anything it just says more about the foresightedness of The Economist and incompetence of the MICT.
I think it's more a question of control...Print is traceable, therefore distributors would be at risk if they actually did their job, so The Economist did the pragmatic thing by halting print distribution, knowing that it would not affect actual circulation of content.
While print is still king in Thailand, it is only because the internet has not infiltrated the mass market.
Something that I think would be interesting would be to compare print vs internet media across levels of internet access, with Thailand at one end, Korea at the other, and perhaps the US in the middle. How does internet access, speed, and familiarity affect print distribution levels? What sort of content is affected by universal access? What is not affected?
Surely cowardice rather than foresightedness?
What happened to the Economist's plan last year to sort out these non-distribution issues? I thought they acknowledged that their Thai distributors were too timid, and planned to rectify that? Clearly that didn't get far.
Matthew, to be fair there's only been one time in since last December where the distributors in Thailand took the decision themselves not to distribute. The six other times it was the publishers of The Economist who decided themselves not to send copies here.
But in the current climate and under current laws I don't think there are any distribution companies that would want to risk a complaint. I believe The Economist has used at least four different companies in the last five years, including the distribution arms of both Bangkok Post and The Nation. They're running out of options I think.
Post a Comment