Shire ad­ver­tis­ing ex­plained

Augusta Margaret River Times - - News - Gary Ever­shed Chief ex­ec­u­tive, AMRSC

In re­sponse to Rick Ens­ley’s let­ter in Au­gusta-Mar­garet River Times last week (Alarm over ad’s ab­sence, 15/9), I wish to ad­vise the Shire of Au­gusta-Mar­garet River is charged with the re­spon­si­bil­ity to ob­tain the best value for money for the Shire ratepayer when mak­ing pur­chases.

In re­la­tion to news­pa­per ad­ver­tis­ing, the Shire from time to time mar­ket tests the cost of ad­ver­tis­ing by seek­ing quo­ta­tions.

Pub­lic ad­ver­tis­ing of coun­cil busi­ness only re­quires ads to be placed in one of the two news­pa­pers cir­cu­lat­ing within the shire.

The Fair­fax of­fer­ing for the same ser­vice was al­most 30 per cent cheaper and will re­sult in a sav­ing of $6000-$16,000 a year, de­pend­ing on the size and scale of ad­ver­tis­ing un­der­taken.

Mr Ens­ley’s let­ter im­plies the Shire should con­sider editorial con­tent in ap­point­ing the pre­ferred news­pa­per ad­ver­tiser.

The Shire’s as­sess­ment process has al­ways specif­i­cally ex­cluded this as a cri­te­rion as it would be im­proper for the lo­cal gov­ern­ment to be seek­ing to in­flu­ence jour­nal­is­tic cov­er­age through its ad­ver­tis­ing spend.

I hope this ex­pla­na­tion helps to ex­plain what Mr Ens­ley deemed to be in­ex­pli­ca­ble.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.