The British Ambassador to Spain has been visiting Mallorca. You could hardly have missed this if you had read "The Bulletin" on Saturday; not one, not two, not three, but four pages devoted to Giles Paxman - Paxo Minor, he is the younger brother of Jezza. How to fill space and fail to influence people.
The ambassador pitched up at the offices of "The Bulletin" to hand over a commemorative letter, albeit that it is two years early; the paper celebrates its 50th anniversary in 2012, but this didn't stop a small orgy of self-congratulation, the always beaming British Consul on hand to enjoy a toast. Oh, that he might venture northwards to meet British businesses. He could take a leaf out of his boss's book: Paxo the younger will apparently be meeting such businesses in Benidorm. But that's not what I want to talk about.
The letter commends the paper on its achievement and on playing a "very important role within the British community". It will be an achievement, but you have to wonder for how much longer.
According to the audited circulation figures supplied by OJD (Oficina de Justificatión de Difusión), the paper's average net circulation declined by 11% from 3,839 copies in 2008 to 3,405 in 2009. Economic hard times may partially explain this, but there surely are other factors, such as ease of buying British papers and the internet.
When the paper started in 1962, and for many years thereafter, it was not only a visionary move to publish it but it was also "very important". British papers could not be bought easily, and there were few alternative sources of information, especially for the Brit who resolutely refused to learn or read Spanish.
None of this obtains now, other than the Brit still steadfastly avoiding the native. What actually is the point of the paper now? One that uses translated pieces from "Ultima Hora", stuff from the internet (sometimes verbatim), can verge on the unintelligible (we all know what) and is rarely if ever contentious or provocative, except to a few who engage in arguments regarding British or arcane international politics or when a letter-writer raises a vaguely controversial point. The word "lightweight" too easily comes to mind.
Perhaps when the paper's nickname is used - and I assume everyone knows this - there is a sense of unfairness; too high a level of expectation. Look at those circulation figures, and work it out for yourselves. This unfairness also masks genuine affection for the paper, despite its idiosyncracies. But this affection stems in part from the fact that it is something of a bygone age. In the same stable as "The Bulletin", the Catalan paper "dBalears" has been commended for its visual style. It, "Ultima Hora" and the German weekly, "Mallorca Magazin" all have decent websites, replete with additional advertising possibilities. None of this applies to "The Bulletin".
And is it genuinely "very important" within the British community? I would like to say that it is. It was, but I doubt that it now is. Too often, for example, one hears the gripe that it neglects parts of Mallorca away from Palma or Calvia. Some of you will know that I did have a brief association with the paper. It was intended to create more of an emphasis on the north of the island. I also spoke to them about how to enhance the brand name of the paper, and it's a strong name, despite the mickey-taking nickname; nigh on fifty years lend the brand enormous credibility, or should do, but they fail to in a way that commands real respect. I came to realise I was wasting my time. There was seemingly little interest in either the northern community or in something a bit more innovative. It's a great shame. It could still be "very important", but it's hard to see how without a radical re-think.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
Showing posts with label British community. Show all posts
Showing posts with label British community. Show all posts
Monday, August 09, 2010
Sunday, June 14, 2009
And The Nominations Are ...
Oh dear, oh dear. One does have to be so careful.
The bar owners and bar staff of Alcúdia form a close community; they are a community within a community. Competition there may be, but mostly everyone knows each other, and many are good friends. This sub-community is alive with what has reached, absurdly you might think, the status of a cause célèbre (actually it hasn't, but do excuse a touch of hyperbole). It all stems from what, at first reading, seemed a pretty innocent piece in "Talk Of The North". If you're not up to speed with this, and many of you will be of course, the piece was in response to a question as to whether there were any good bar staff and waiters in the British bars and restaurants of Alcúdia. Yes, came the answer, and five bars and five bar owners/staff were named. It was at this point that levels of umbrage began to be taken.
There has been, in my opinion, some selective reading of this piece. What it actually says is "here's 5 of the best" (and then names them). What it does not say is "here are the five best". The implication is that the best amount to more than five. Six, seven, twenty, fifty, however many. The piece concluded by asking "who would you nominate?". On the face of it, therefore, here was a positive expression of examples of good service (but not exclusively these five) together with a request for the readership to name their own good servants. All good participative stuff, you might think.
However, selective reading notwithstanding, the interpretation placed on this by some is that other bar staff/owners/whoever are not good, or as good. To compound this apparent affront, the piece is headlined and footed with the words "watch and learn", which mean, one supposes, that the others should draw lessons from the (by-now) famous five. That is certainly an interpretation doing the rounds, one made, for example, and in a measured and perfectly reasonable way, by John Santana on the Barfly blog (and John, as many will attest, has a deservedly good reputation).
This may not have reached the levels it has were it not for another factor, and that is that the author of this piece is "John Nelson". I put the name in inverted commas, unsure as I am if this is actually a nom de plume. Whatever the case, herein lies perhaps the greatest problem. People do not know who John Nelson is. I am told that only a handful of people do. This anonymity has led to the creation of a Facebook entry asking "who the hell is John Nelson?".
"Talk Of The North" acts as a sort-of community newsletter. The word "community" is important, and the community is not that big. Its very smallness and tight-knit nature give rise to the rapid dissemination of rumour, of information (both correct and incorrect), and of pleasure or annoyance. And the internet has made this dissemination that much more rapid and the information more available; indeed without it, one could argue that the "famous five" case would not have developed a certain momentum.
A counter view, and one expressed to me, is that perhaps there are not that many who have taken umbrage at the piece; it is recourse to the internet that generates more heat than might have been the case and conveys the impression of something more important than it actually is.
Whatever the real situation, and setting aside what may be construed as some good publicity for certain bars over others - especially in the current climate - the crux of all this does perhaps boil down to two things. One. As nature abhors a vacuum, so communities abhor not knowing - in this case, the vacuum of anonymity, i.e. who the author is. The author may be of the wider community, but he appears to be apart from it as well. Two. The mere fact of naming people and bars makes the whole thing personal. Though it was not intended to be personal in a different sense, that of implying criticism of others, this is how it has been perceived. And within the small community of Alcúdia's British bars and bar staff, to be seen to be taking sides with certain bars and staff, even if this was not intended, is almost bound to have repercussions. One should not lose sight of the fact, however, that this was one person's opinion, and it is an opinion he is entitled to offer. Perhaps it could have been couched differently and, if so, therein lies the fault of the piece, nothing more. Let it not be denied, furthermore, that reaction has been provoked. Negative some of it, but not necessarily a totally bad thing.
One does have to be careful. Praise for some is criticism for others. There again, let's not get carried away. Had this been about the five worst, then there really would have been grounds for a stink. Who would you nominate?
QUIZ
Yesterday's title - Billy Ocean, "Get Outta My Dreams": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d0rDz3PKX0.
(PLEASE REPLY TO andrew@thealcudiaguide.com AND NOT VIA THE COMMENTS THINGY HERE.)
The bar owners and bar staff of Alcúdia form a close community; they are a community within a community. Competition there may be, but mostly everyone knows each other, and many are good friends. This sub-community is alive with what has reached, absurdly you might think, the status of a cause célèbre (actually it hasn't, but do excuse a touch of hyperbole). It all stems from what, at first reading, seemed a pretty innocent piece in "Talk Of The North". If you're not up to speed with this, and many of you will be of course, the piece was in response to a question as to whether there were any good bar staff and waiters in the British bars and restaurants of Alcúdia. Yes, came the answer, and five bars and five bar owners/staff were named. It was at this point that levels of umbrage began to be taken.
There has been, in my opinion, some selective reading of this piece. What it actually says is "here's 5 of the best" (and then names them). What it does not say is "here are the five best". The implication is that the best amount to more than five. Six, seven, twenty, fifty, however many. The piece concluded by asking "who would you nominate?". On the face of it, therefore, here was a positive expression of examples of good service (but not exclusively these five) together with a request for the readership to name their own good servants. All good participative stuff, you might think.
However, selective reading notwithstanding, the interpretation placed on this by some is that other bar staff/owners/whoever are not good, or as good. To compound this apparent affront, the piece is headlined and footed with the words "watch and learn", which mean, one supposes, that the others should draw lessons from the (by-now) famous five. That is certainly an interpretation doing the rounds, one made, for example, and in a measured and perfectly reasonable way, by John Santana on the Barfly blog (and John, as many will attest, has a deservedly good reputation).
This may not have reached the levels it has were it not for another factor, and that is that the author of this piece is "John Nelson". I put the name in inverted commas, unsure as I am if this is actually a nom de plume. Whatever the case, herein lies perhaps the greatest problem. People do not know who John Nelson is. I am told that only a handful of people do. This anonymity has led to the creation of a Facebook entry asking "who the hell is John Nelson?".
"Talk Of The North" acts as a sort-of community newsletter. The word "community" is important, and the community is not that big. Its very smallness and tight-knit nature give rise to the rapid dissemination of rumour, of information (both correct and incorrect), and of pleasure or annoyance. And the internet has made this dissemination that much more rapid and the information more available; indeed without it, one could argue that the "famous five" case would not have developed a certain momentum.
A counter view, and one expressed to me, is that perhaps there are not that many who have taken umbrage at the piece; it is recourse to the internet that generates more heat than might have been the case and conveys the impression of something more important than it actually is.
Whatever the real situation, and setting aside what may be construed as some good publicity for certain bars over others - especially in the current climate - the crux of all this does perhaps boil down to two things. One. As nature abhors a vacuum, so communities abhor not knowing - in this case, the vacuum of anonymity, i.e. who the author is. The author may be of the wider community, but he appears to be apart from it as well. Two. The mere fact of naming people and bars makes the whole thing personal. Though it was not intended to be personal in a different sense, that of implying criticism of others, this is how it has been perceived. And within the small community of Alcúdia's British bars and bar staff, to be seen to be taking sides with certain bars and staff, even if this was not intended, is almost bound to have repercussions. One should not lose sight of the fact, however, that this was one person's opinion, and it is an opinion he is entitled to offer. Perhaps it could have been couched differently and, if so, therein lies the fault of the piece, nothing more. Let it not be denied, furthermore, that reaction has been provoked. Negative some of it, but not necessarily a totally bad thing.
One does have to be careful. Praise for some is criticism for others. There again, let's not get carried away. Had this been about the five worst, then there really would have been grounds for a stink. Who would you nominate?
QUIZ
Yesterday's title - Billy Ocean, "Get Outta My Dreams": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d0rDz3PKX0.
(PLEASE REPLY TO andrew@thealcudiaguide.com AND NOT VIA THE COMMENTS THINGY HERE.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
