The Peril Of Executive Optimism In 2010

The Peril Of Executive Optimism In 2010
Andrew Ward, 01.25.10, 04:41 PM EST

It is likely to cost some CEOs their jobs.

In the past year the markets and confidence gyrated. Twelve months ago we all believed we were staring into the financial abyss. Since then consumer sentiment has come a long way. Even housing looks to have hit bottom and started heading toward recovery. Are the good times here again, or at least around the corner?

There are indeed green shoots poking their heads above the dirt, but anyone occupying a corner office should be aware of the dangers that lie ahead for someone in their position. When green shoots appear, especially after a barren spell like the one we've been through, expectations for recovery grow much faster than the recovery itself.

The mismatch between racing expectations and slower recovery can sow greater discontent than during the depths of the recession. People expect things to get back to their best quickly. But especially in terms of job and wage growth, a recovery can take many months longer to be felt on Main Street than on an already improving Wall Street.

As a result people start to feel very frustrated with those who are supposed to be leading the recovery, from government figures to the corporate heads. We are already seeing the end of President Obama's honeymoon, with his approval rating dropping from around 70% on inauguration day to below 50% a year later, according to the Gallup daily poll. Moreover, Obama's disapproval rating has risen from just over 10% at the inauguration to 44% today. Don't expect employers to avoid their share of that kind of mismatch-induced discontent.

In my research on the largest U.S. companies during and after the last major recession, in 1990 and '91, I found that more chief executives were fired in the nine months following the recession than during the nine-month recession itself. Another study, by Sheila Puffer of Northeastern University and Joseph Weintrop of Baruch College, found that CEO dismissals then were driven less by absolute performance than by performance relative to board expectations. What does that suggest about the months ahead? When times are tough and the economy is a deep trough, expectations stay low. Workers accept furloughs, pay cuts and hiring freezes, taking them in stride. As a recession bottoms out expectations remain low, and so when many companies this quarter reported earnings way down from last year, they were still better than analyst expectations. However, that sent the message that maybe things aren't as bad as we fear, that maybe the worst is over. Expectations can now rise--and they're beginning to rise quickly.

As expectations rise boards will quickly begin to expect profits to rise, too, not just to decline less than feared. Employees will expect the tide to turn over the next few quarters from laying off to hiring, from pay cuts to raises. Yet companies are unlikely to rebound as quickly as their boards and employees anticipate. Those green shoots are still tender and yet to bloom. Boards and employees will begin to grow disappointed and will hold to account whoever they consider responsible for their organization's performance. They will ratchet up the pressure for faster recovery. This is likely to lead to the dismissal of CEOs who are unable to temper rising expectations and hammer home a message of more cautious optimism.

Good times will be here again, but leaders need to set expectations, both for the speed of the recovery and also for its tone. They need to draw appropriate lessons from the boom and bust, that to some degree euphoria was built on an unsustainable model of debt-fueled consumption and expectations of never-ending growth. If consumers learn to temper their own behavior as incomes start to rise again, the good times won't feel quite as good as they did before, but the recovery should be more sustainable. That's to be hoped for--but expectations have to be managed or heads at the top will roll, in both business and politics.

Andrew Ward is a member of the faculty of the Management Department at Lehigh University. His most recent book is Firing Back: How Great Leaders Rebound After Career Disasters, co-authored with Jeffrey Sonnenfeld of Yale University.

See also: "Expect Heavy CEO Turnover Very Soon," by Nat Stoddard.

Analysts predict bold growth for Google Android

Analysts predict bold growth for Google Android
by Marguerite Reardon

Google's Android is expected to take the smartphone market by storm in the next few years, growing faster than all its competitors, according to an IDC report published Monday.

Android is expected to be the fastest growing wireless operating system from now until 2013, when the software will be the second most used smartphone operating system throughout the world, the report said.

Today, the Symbian operating system, used mostly on Nokia phones, dominates the smartphone operating system market worldwide. BlackBerry maker Research In Motion holds the No.2 spot currently, with Apple in the No.3 spot globally.

The numbers differ in the U.S. market where Symbian has very little market share. In the U.S., RIM is currently the top smartphone operating system provider, and Apple is in the No. 2 spot. Microsoft is in the third position with its Windows Mobile operating system.

But by 2013, Android is expected to grow much faster than all its competitors, IDC says. And it will knock out RIM as the No. 2 operating system provider globally and bump Apple from its second place position in the U.S.

The shift in market share comes as more device makers release phones using the Android operating system. A handful of new phones using Android from Motorola, HTC, and Samsung were announced in 2009, but in 2010 manufacturers are expected to increase the number of Android devices and ramp up sales. Motorola has said it's planning at least 10 new Android devices in the first half of 2010.

IDC analyst Stephen Drake said the sheer volume of devices that are expected to come out using the Android OS will catapult its growth. One of the big advantages Android has over other operating systems, such as RIM's or Apple's Mac OS, is that it can be used on hardware from a wide base of manufacturers. RIM and Apple only use their operating system on devices they make.

"While there are a lot of operating systems on the market, there are not a lot of opportunities for device manufacturers that don't own their own software," Drake said.

Microsoft's Windows Mobile also caters to this market. But Drake believes that Android's growth will outpace growth of Windows Mobile, because Android is free, open-source software, whereas Windows Mobile requires a licensing fee. For this reason, Drake believes that handset makers will focus more on Android.

Windows Mobile is still a popular mobile operating system, and it already has a large installed base. But growth is stalling as manufacturers and consumers wait for the next version of the operating system, Windows Mobile 7.0. That said, Drake doesn't believe that manufacturers will abandon Windows Mobile. But they will be adding more Android devices to their device mix. As an example, Drake said that HTC, the biggest handset maker using Windows Mobile, is looking more at Android, as is Motorola, LG, and Samsung.

"The story isn't great for Windows Mobile," he said. "If you look at news cycle for smartphones over the past year, where was Microsoft? They need a splash with Windows Mobile 7. And they need to produce a device with a 'wow factor,' something in the superphone range."

Marguerite Reardon has been a CNET News reporter since 2004, covering cell phone services, broadband, citywide Wi-Fi, the Net neutrality debate, as well as the ongoing consolidation of the phone companies. E-mail Maggie.

Recent posts from Signal Strength

Analysts predict bold growth for Google Android
Nokia takes on Google with free navigation app
FCC closes cable programming loophole
Verizon revises list of phones for its $350 ETF
AT&T-Verizon price war debunked (FAQ)
Justice Dept. dismisses text-messaging probe
FCC wades through Net neutrality comments
Clearwire may consider 4G alternatives to WiMax

Top 10 ways to get rid of Gen Yers in your office

GENERATION Y – a perpetual hot topic. How to attract them, retain them, put up with them? Or that one solution that tempts many but no one wants to say out loud: Get rid of them altogether, and save yourself a lot of headaches.

Much research has been done on Gen Yers and what makes them tick. Using those findings as a basis, let’s look at how to get rid of them.

1. Ban Facebook, Twitter and all other social media websites. While not a panacea for clearing your office of Gen Yers, this is a good place to start. A survey done by Deloitte shows that some teens consider lack of social networking at work a significant detriment in choosing a workplace.

2. Don’t let them work from home. Or anywhere that’s not the office. Gen Ys value and almost expect flexible schedules. Not letting them work from home – or anywhere other than the office – is a sure way to frustrate them.

3. Don’t tell them why their work matters, or how it will be used. Everyone appreciates knowing the value his work adds, especially Gen Y. One Gen Y in a focus group pointed out that they are constantly “looking for a sense of the bigger picture”.

4. Give them as much mundane and repetitive work as possible. Gen Yers believe they can learn quickly, take on significant responsibility and make major contributions far sooner than older generations think they can. Personal development is usually a high priority for them. Assigning them mundane work is therefore an irritant in both the short and long term, especially if you can combine it with No. 3 above.

5. Tell them off for not working 100% of the time in the office. Technological advances have broken down the disconnection between working hours and non-working hours. With round-the-clock email and demands for answers, many Gen Y knowledge workers feel they are effectively on call 24/7.

Consequently, they believe that they need to take more breaks throughout the day, often through video games, iPods or YouTube. Tell them that they’re not paid to play around during company time whenever you see them goofing off in the office – even if they worked till midnight last night.

6. Evaluate them on the number of hours they stay in the office a day, rather than the quality or quantity of work they produce. Combine this with No. 2 and No. 5 for extra impact.

7. Never praise them or thank them for putting in the extra effort. Gen Ys are willing to work hard but within reason. Asking them to put in time and/or effort they see as unreasonable and/or unnecessary is guaranteed to irritate them. Don’t forget you can rub some salt into the wound by giving them no praise or recognition whatsoever, or acting as if their extra effort was run of the mill.

8. Give them anything but transparency. Gen Y came of age in a world of layoffs and corporate scandals, fostering a belief that businesses in general value their own financial gains above everything else, and that business talk about the importance of people is largely insincere.

One Gen Y in a focus group commented: “We are looking to be loyal to an employer if that employer will be loyal to us, but we don‘t think business operates that way today.”

Utilise this scepticism by making promises you never deliver on or even address again. If they can even tell you made any, under the layers of fluff.

9. Tell them work-life balance is a fantasy only held by the ambitionless. One survey found that almost 90% of Gen Yers have either a primary focus on family, or they divide their focus between work and family. They favour family and personal time over the rewards that usually accompany increased job responsibility.

Now, this is a golden opportunity; pile on the hours, while telling them that eventually they’ll grow up and realise that they’ll have to prioritise their career just to make a living.

10. Use these phrases as often as possible: “Do it because I said so.” “That’s the way we’ve always done it around here.” “You have to pay your dues.” “You young people don’t understand working life.”

Gen Yers hate being disrespected. They have been raised to feel valuable and very positive about themselves…and to question authority. Send them the message that you expect them to respect you due to your higher rank alone.

Once you’ve successfully cleared all Gen Ys out of your office, and hopefully deterred any other potentials from applying, sit back and relax. You’ve managed to save yourself a lot of time, trouble and headaches, in the short term. In the long term, as the workforce ages and older generations retire, you may experience a problem.

The truth of the matter is that Gen Y is simply too large to ignore, both as workers and consumers. Companies that don’t figure out how to harness this growing resource are likely to find themselves at a distinct disadvantage, not only in the talent market, but in the broader market as well.

Effectively attracting, managing and retaining Gen Y certainly poses a challenge, especially while taking care to cater to the rest of your workforce. However, research has shown that all generations basically want and value the same things.

The difference is that priorities, expectations and behaviours may differ noticeably. With a little creative thinking, and an open mind from all employees, organisations can find solutions that appeal to all generations.

For instance, coaching and/or mentoring arrangements support Gen Yers’ desire to learn and develop, while giving older generations an opportunity to contribute and feel valued. Other programmes such as flexible work arrangements appeal to not just Gen Y, but also baby-boomers considering sabbaticals and Gen Xers who value flexitime and telecommuting.

The most important question to ask yourself is not “how should I manage Generation Y?” but rather, “how can I make my company a great place for all generations to work?”

BY Deloitte Insight - By LIM PHUI CHENG  - The writer is a consultant with Deloitte Malaysia’s human capital consulting practice.

A tighter rein on land transfers

A tighter rein on land transfers
Comment by ROGER TAN

There is a general sigh of relief with the Federal Court’s decision in favour of a landowner who was cheated of his property, overruling the decision in Adorna Properties which has wreaked havoc in land transactions and increased the number of land scams in the last nine years.

THE decision by the Federal Court last Thursday in Tan Ying Hong v Tan Sian San & 2 Ors to depart from its previous decision made in Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd v Boonsom Boonyanit 2000 has finally and correctly restored the principle of deferred indefeasibility in our Torrens system of registration after a gruelling wait of more than nine years.

For the benefit of the readers, let me first explain this principle in simple terms.

Under the Torrens system , the State will guarantee an indefeasible title to anyone whose name is registered on the register of titles.

This is enshrined in section 340(1) of the National Land Code, 1965 (“NLC”) which applies to West Malaysia.

However, sub-section 340(2) provides that a title or interest can still be defeasible if it is acquired, inter alia, by fraud, misrepresentation, forgery or through an insufficient or void instrument.

Sub-section 340(3) then goes on to say that if the immediate purchaser subsequently transfers the title or interest to a subsequent purchaser, the said title or interest is still liable to be set aside provided the subsequent purchaser is a purchaser in good faith (or bona fide) and for valuable consideration.

In other words, only the subsequent bona fide purchaser/transferee and not the immediate bona fide purchaser/transferee will get an indefeasible title created out of a defeasible title.

(Under the NLC, a purchaser is defined to include a bank taking a charge over the land.) To put it in another way, for example, A is the registered proprietor of the land.

B forges A’s signature and transfers the land to himself. B later sells and transfers the land to C. C, who has no knowledge of the forgery, will obtain an indefeasible title. Or if B forges A’s signature and transfers the land from A to C and C later transfers the land to D, then, D and not C, who has no knowledge of the forgery, will obtain an indefeasible title. C and D in the first and second examples are known as subsequent purchasers under s 340(3).

However, if the principle of immediate indefeasibility espoused in Adorna Properties applies, C will still get an indefeasible title if B forges A’s signature and transfers the land immediately from A to C without first having transferred to B himself.

That was exactly what happened in Adorna Properties.

An impostor of the genuine landowner, Boonsom Boonyanit, made a false statutory declaration that she had lost the original title to two pieces of lands in Penang, and successfully managed to obtain a certified copy of the title from the land office.

With that, the impostor registered the transfer of the lands to Adorna Properties Sdn. Bhd. (“Adorna”) for a sum of RM12mil.

A three-member bench led by Chief Justice Tun Eusoffe Chin held that Adorna had obtained a good title because the proviso in sub-section 340(3) would apply to sub-section 340(2) even though Adorna was an immediate bona fide purchaser.

As a result, Boonyanit lost everything as the forger had also disappeared with the money.

Despite two attempts made by Boonyanit’s family to have the decision reviewed by a separate panel of the Federal Court in 2001 and 2004, the Federal Court dismissed both applications on the ground that no grave injustice had occasioned.

It is, therefore, not surprising to hear Chief Justice Tun Zaki Azmi last Thursday describe the error committed by the Federal Court in Adorna Properties as “obvious and blatant”.

In delivering the main judgment of the apex court, Chief Judge of Malaya, Tan Sri Arifin Zakaria ruled that the Federal Court in Adorna Properties had misconstrued s 340 and came to the erroneous conclusion that the proviso appearing in sub-section 340(3) equally applied to sub-section 340(2).

With the latest decision, the law as respects indefeasibility of titles is now settled, and all the other judges must hereafter follow it conscientiously as the decision of this strong five-member bench has effectively overruled Adorna Properties.

In fact, it cannot be gainsaid that Adorna Properties has wreaked havoc in land transactions, and incidents of land scams have also increased in the last nine years. The police had even revealed before that the computerised land registration system in several states, including Kuala Lumpur, Penang and Johor, had been compromised by syndicates using “inside people” to forge land titles resulting in several registered proprietors and purchasers losing millions of ringgit.

The former Director of Bukit Aman Commercial Crimes Investigation Department Datuk Ramli Yusoff was quoted in 2007 as saying the modus operandi of these perpetrators was to declare that they had lost their land titles and then obtained replacement titles with the assistance of “inside people” before selling the land.

In Tan Ying Hong’s case, the forger, Tan Sian San, had forged the signature of the landowner Ying Hong to create a forged power of attorney in order to charge the land to RHB Bank as security for loans totalling RM300,000 granted to a third party, Cini Timber Industries Sdn Bhd.

It follows that the apex court held that the charge was invalid because as RHB Bank was an immediate purchaser under s 340(2), the proviso under s 340(3) did not apply.

Of course, had Sian San first transferred the land to himself and then charged it to RHB Bank, the latter would have been a subsequent purchaser entitled to the protection of the proviso in s 340(3) .

At this juncture, it must be stressed that the latest decision of the Federal Court does not mean that a landowner is now legally incapable of losing his land to a forger.

The decision only makes it more difficult now for these thieves and conmen to fraudulently transfer the lands.

We must, of course, not underestimate these criminals as it is not difficult from now on for a forger to transfer the property to himself or another person before transferring it to a subsequent bona fide purchaser in order to enjoy the benefit of the proviso in s 340(3).

This is all the more so if there is help from “inside people”. Take Tan Ying Hong’s case, for example.

I am just bewildered as to how the Pahang state government could have “mysteriously” alienated a nine-acre plot of land in Kuantan to Ying Hong in 1976 when he did not even know about the existence of the land until he received a demand letter from RHB Bank in 1985.

As the alienation has not been challenged, it appears that the flawed system has mysteriously enriched Ying Hong with a property which is now probably worth millions of ringgit.

It is apposite to note that in every land scam like in Adorna Properties, there are two victims involved – the genuine landowner and the bona fide purchaser.

As everyone is either a landowner or a purchaser or both, it is indeed a balancing act when deciding whose interest requires more protection and to what extent the landowner should be protected in the entire chain of dealings.

In doing so, it must be borne in mind that if protection is given solely and wholly to the landowner, then Malaysia may not be so conducive for property investments.

In this respect, countries which practise immediate indefeasibility such as Australia, New Zealand and Singapore have an assurance fund to compensate victims of land scams.

That said, as land is a State matter here, implementation of such a fund may not be so straightforward.

All in all, the latest decision now requires the purchasers, banks and their lawyers to be even more vigilant and diligent when conducting land searches and verifying the identities of the sellers before purchasing any property or providing any finance.

It is also my considered opinion that notwithstanding this landmark decision, the NLC should still be amended to bring about more stringent procedures and measures as regards how replacement titles are obtained, and dealings are presented and registered in order to be one step ahead of the criminal minds of fraud and forgery.

The writer is a former Chairman of the Conveyancing Practice Committee of the Bar Council. In Tan Ying Hong’s case, he held a watching brief for the Bar Council as its counsel.

China rejects claims of cyber attacks on Google

BBC

China has denied any state involvement in alleged cyber attacks on Google and accused the US of double standards.

A Chinese industry ministry spokesman told the state-run Xinhua news agency that claims that Beijing was behind recent cyber attacks were "groundless".

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton this week asked China to investigate claims by Google that it had been targeted by China-based hackers.

The US search giant has threatened to withdraw from China.

"The accusation that the Chinese government participated in [any] cyber attack, either in an explicit or inexplicit way, is groundless. We [are] firmly opposed to that," the unnamed spokesman of China's ministry of industry and information technology told Xinhua.

"Isn't it true that even in the United States, the homeland of Google, certain government agencies are also reported of often entering a massive number of personal e-mail accounts with certain excuses?"
China Daily newspaper

"China's policy on internet safety is transparent and consistent," he added.

Separately, China's state-run China Daily newspaper said America's internet strategy was "to exploit its advantages in internet funds, technology and marketing and export its politics, commerce and culture to other nations for political, commercial and cultural interests of the world's only superpower".

It also described the US government as being hypocritical, saying the country's "certain government agencies" had reportedly illegally checked a massive number of personal e-mail accounts.

On Thursday, Mrs Clinton urged Beijing to investigate the alleged cyber attacks on Google.

Hillary Clinton: "We look to the Chinese authorities to conduct a thorough review"

"We look to Chinese authorities to conduct a thorough investigation of the cyber intrusions," she said.

Mrs Clinton added that companies such as the US giant should refuse to support "politically motivated censorship".

Again in reference to China, she said that any country which restricted free access to information risked "walling themselves off from the progress of the next century".

Google said on 12 January that hackers had tried to infiltrate its software coding and the e-mail accounts of Chinese human rights activists, in a "highly sophisticated" attack.

The California-based company, which launched in China in 2006, said it would quit the country unless the government relaxed censorship.

On Tuesday, the Chinese government said Google and other foreign companies had to obey the country's laws and traditions.

The same day, Google said it was postponing the launch of two mobile phones in China.

When Google launched google.cn four years ago, it was criticised for agreeing to Beijing's demands to make certain search results off-limits - including those relating to the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, Tibetan independence or Falun Gong.

China has more internet users, about 350 million, than any other country and provides a lucrative search-engine market worth an estimated $1bn (£618m) last year.

Google holds about a third of the country's search market, with Chinese rival Baidu having more than 60%.

Newscribe : get free news in real time 

Google Will Stay in China, Poll Says

Google Will Stay in China, Poll Says

NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- Despite the heated battle over censorship and security breaches, Google(GOOG Quote) is not expected to leave China, according to TheStreet users
An overwhelming 66.4% said Google would stick it out, while 33.6% said the company would cease doing business in the country.

Google's fourth-quarter earnings report, which raised some concern of future growth prospects, could be one reason why voters believe Google will stay in the country.

On Thursday, the company reported earnings of $1.97 billion, or $6.13 a share, compared with $382 million, or $1.21 a share, in the year-ago period. Excluding special items, Google would have earned $6.79 a share, better than the $6.48 analysts expected.

Revenue grew 17% to $4.95 billion. While this matched Wall Street's forecast, it disappointed investors who believed the company would significantly surpass estimates.

The other red flag came from search paid clicks, which were lower than last year.

While the amount of Google's business coming out of China is minimal (analysts estimate only about 3% of its revenue will come from the country in 2010), exiting the country could have severe consequences for the future growth of the company.

China boasts one of the world's fastest growing Internet markets. In 2008, the country outpaced the United States, and now claims the most Internet users in the world.

Google did not reveal any new developments in its plans with China during its earnings call, simply stating that it would like to continue to work with China, but intends to stop censoring search results in the country within "a reasonably short time."

The battle between Google and China arose after Google reported a cyber-attack that seemed to target human rights advocates in the country.

On Friday, Beijing shot down U.S. claims that China is hindering the free flow of information over the Internet. Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu said regulations are in-line with Chinese law and do not hurt the cyber operations of the rest of the world.

The Internet company also said that it will no longer adhere to China's censorship demands. Since 2006, Google has filtered its search results on its Google.cn, in compliance with the country's wishes.

Earlier this week, Google announced that it will delay the launch of two phones in China that use its Android operating system. The devices are from Samsung and Motorola(MOT Quote) and were set to launch on Wednesday.

-- Reported by Jeanine Poggi in New York.

Newspaper ads still the most effective

Newspaper ads still the most effective

By EUGENE MAHALINGAM
eugenicz@thestar.com

ADVANCES in technology may have spurred the growth of various forms of media, but newspapers are still a staple of our society and they continue to grab the lion’s share of advertising expenditure, says Omnicom Media Group (OMG) managing director Andreas Vogiatzakis.
Andreas Vogiatzakis ... ‘Habits don’t change dramatically.’

In its latest Optimum Impression 2009 study, OMG reveals that 57% of newspaper ads got noticed – which has been the trend since 2003.

“From the study, we found that habits don’t change dramatically. Newspapers continue to dominate in the ad spend despite the decline in ad spend,” says Vogiatzakis.

OMG director of communication insights for Asia Pacific, Guy Hearn, says the fact that the majority of ads were noticed by readers was proof of the continued relevance and importance of newspapers to advertisers.

He says that ad relevance picked up especially during a global economic downturn. In the study, it was revealed that readership of print newspapers in Malaysia rose 32% in 2009.

“Last year was the recession and the trend is that people spent more time at home. With the news that was going on in the marketplace, people wanted to be more informed about what was going on,” he explains.

Held in August last year, the study covered 2,452 different ads in 15 main newspapers and 1,023 readers aged 15 to 54 in Kuala Lumpur, Petaling Jaya, Penang, Ipoh and Johor Baru. Overall, there was a total of 14,522 ad exposures.
Guy Hearn ... ‘People wanted to be more informed about what was going on.’

The newspapers surveyed comprised five English newspapers (The Star, The Sun, New Straits Times, The Malay Mail, The Edge), six Chinese dailies (Sin Chew Daily, China Press, Kwong Wah, Guang Ming, Nanyang Siang Pau, Oriental Daily) and four Malay dailies (Utusan Malaysia, Kosmo, Harian Metro and Berita Harian).

OMG research manager Yong Shel Vei, in presenting the results of the study, says that ad noting among Malay language readers was the highest.

“More than two thirds (68%) of ads were noticed by these readers and this is probably due to the lower ad clutter in Malay language titles. On average, Malay language newspaper readers are exposed to 15% less ads than the Chinese language newspaper readers,” she adds.

Vogiatzakis says it is immaterial whether an advertiser chooses to place an ad in a paid or free newspaper.

“From my professional experience in Malaysia, once the decision is made to pick up the free paper and flip through the pages, whether it’s paid or free, it doesn’t matter,” he argues.

“If your creative is strong and is of substantial importance, like targeting a housewife with a shopping coupon, I guarantee you she will pick it (the newspaper) up. The fundamentals don’t change. You have to have a great product and an idea that captures the heart and mind of the consumer.”
Yong Shel Vei says ad noting among Malay language readers was the highest.

Overall, the study revealed that ad noting on Saturdays was highest due to lower ad clutter. The study also revealed that newspaper circulation had surged to 4.8 million currently from 800,000 in 2003.

“The higher ad noting on Saturdays is also possible because people have more time to read the newspapers on that day,” says Yong. She adds that ads that are larger have a higher chance of being noticed.

“Bigger ads are not only more likely to get the reader’s attention, they also enhanced the brand recall and increase the chances of readers reading the ad and absorbing its message. A full-page ad yields 21% higher ad noting than a quarter page,” she says.

Coloured ads were also revealed to attract attention. According to the study, 59% of coloured ads were noticed compared to 53% of black and white ones. Ads placed on right-hand pages were also more likely to be noticed, especially in tabloids.

Yong also says ads that were creative were better recalled by readers. “Media creativity enhances ad noting by 15%, ad read by 30% and brand recall by 25%.”

She says sandwich ads, namely those placed in the middle of a page between news articles, could generate as much as 40% higher ad noting.