Has Fairfax lost its voice in a race to the middle?
As Fairfax Media's digital subscription numbers continue to fall, Mumbrella's Miranda Ward examines why audiences aren't willing to pay for the privilege.
Fairfax Media boss Greg Hywood has said it is “inevitable” its daily print newspapers The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age will close in the future, committing fully to a digital future.
Yet with The Age posting a year-on-year decline of 3.4% and The Sydney Morning Herald only just managing 0.9% growth in the latest audit figures, a digital future is not what I’d call a safe bet.
For Fairfax management, the question they need to consider is: why have they hit a seeming glass ceiling, and why aren’t more people willing to pay to access the online news?
While Fairfax Media boasts large digital subscription numbers, growth has stagnated over the past year with some consumers going as far as to close their accounts, while News Corp’s The Australian and Herald Sun are reporting positive digital subscription growth. Indeed, The Herald Sun saw its digi subs grow by 29.6%.
For me, as a reader, who has let my digital subscription to Fairfax Media lapse, it came down to content.
Fairfax mastheads – and as a Sydney-sider I typically read the Sydney Morning Herald – seem to have lost their voice. They’ve started to blend into the rest of the noise on the internet and I’m not quite sure what the masthead even stands for anymore.
Sure, it’s slogan is ‘Independent. Always.’, but how does that translate into the masthead’s editorial voice and tone?
At the other end of the spectrum are the News Corp titles, which have a clear agenda, political bias and plenty of strident commentary to get people engaged.
Love it or hate it, you know what to expect from The Australian in terms of tone and content, but with The Sydney Morning Herald’s digital content, at least – and according to Hywood that’s the future – I don’t. What I do get is mostly generic celebrity gossip or ‘You won’t believe it’ headlines, more of the same stuff I can get on News.com.au and other free news sites.
As one Mumbrella commenter said: “Recipes, celebrities, real estate, cute animals….”
Basically Fairfax’s mastheads have split personalities, the quality and thoughtful newspaper experience isn’t translated online, and as a result the websites lack cohesion.
It’s not the fault of the journalists, it’s a lack of clear vision from management and a desire to chase clicks and drive some incremental revenue.
But right now it’s not enough now for me to see money charged on a weekly basis to my credit card.
Plus, if there is something that really catches my eye and I want to read, and if surprisingly I’ve reached my monthly free cap of 30 articles, there’s very easy ways around the paywall. A quick Google search often lets you access the article, or if that’s not working, incognito mode provides another easy cheat around the paywall.
But if I want to do the same for an article behind the pay wall on News Corp’s Daily Telegraph or Courier Mail – it’s not so simple. I did, in fact, sign up to The Daily Telegraph briefly just to read something of interest.
It means while News Corp has a lower amount of subscriber numbers – the publishing company reports only the digi subs for the Herald Sun and The Australian currently – it means they’re growing that figure at a higher rate.
If digital is the future for Fairfax it needs to sort out how its going to convince the average punter to pay because clearly its current strategy isn’t working, and we all know now online ads aren’t going to provide enough revenues to pay the hefty overheads of news-gathering organisations.
Fairfax is known for its investigative journalism, and senior reporter for The Sydney Morning Herald, Kate McClymont, told the Australian Press Council conference last week that it is a “cost-effective necessity” for the future of the media.
“It is that unique content that more and more readers will want to pay for. It’s also essential for good governance in a democracy for the major newspapers of the day to hold those in power to account,” she said.
In terms of cost, Fairfax is competitive – it’s cheapest digital subscription starts at $3.50 a week and gives users unlimited digital access across desktop and mobile. In terms of revenue, it’s positive for the company as with a total of 259,972 digital subscriptions across the SMH and The Age, if they are only signed up at the base rate of $3.50 that puts it at $909,902 a week. Not exactly replacing print subs but also not accruing the same overheads.
News Corp asks users to pay $8 a week for full digital access to The Australian – meaning with a total of 77,371 subs, the newspaper could be pulling in $618,968 a week. Of course this isn’t taking into consideration new users signed up on the $8 for the first eight weeks deal, or bundled packages.
But for Fairfax Media, with newspaper circulation figures also going down and Greg Hywood open about his commitment to a leaner, digital future, is this enough audience-generated revenue for a viable future?
As Mumbrella’s Nic Christensen predicted 12 months ago the digital revenue isn’t coming in fast enough and we are seeing sweeping cuts in newsrooms, especially at Fairfax Media.
The fact is no one wants to see Fairfax disappear -it’s an iconic Australian publishing brand that publishes the newspapers Australians grew up with.
So what are the options? While no journalist wants to find themselves churning out click-friendly celebrity-driven stories, it seems this could be one option for the struggling publisher. But I’d argue that such a decision would drive it even further from the brand the public expects, and wants.
If they did that they’d need to lose the pay wall and embrace the tabloid – News Corp’s News.com.au is consistently number one across the Nielsen audience figures, but again will digital ad revenues cut it for them?
The other option, and the one as both a reader and a journalist I prefer, is it’s time for Fairfax to leverage its premium journalism more, use its investigative partnerships with Four Corners and concentrate on the quality Hywood is so keen to talk about.
What worries me slightly are Hywood’s comments last week about 80% of traffic coming from 20% of stories, knowledge which would allow Fairfax to focus its online efforts more. Let’s face it, it’s unlikely the boring-but-important political and social stories are driving the big clicks to the site.
But I’d argue what will save Fairfax is that deeper understanding of the issues, stepping back from the day-to-day fray and utilising the undoubted expertise it has in the organisation – before it walks out the door – to better effect. Do less, better, and let the others chase the clicks. Then people would pay more for a premium product – one that delivered real value. But that won’t happen if cuts keep on apace.
Come on Fairfax, it’s time to work out who you are again and sell it to us.
Miranda this is the whole point and the reason Hywood is wrong for the job. The plain evidence is that he has no capacity for the product challenge. He doesn’t get it. This is why he relies on jargon and 80:20 nonsense. You only have to look back to his career as a journalist to see that while he stayed in favour with cushy overseas or Canberra jobs he was never a success in the big chair.
User ID not verified.
I for one, broke my decades long SMH habit a while ago when I could no longer trust it to be a great NEWSpaper. It became a noisy agitprop tool, occasionally saved from shame by investigative pieces. Too patchy in its honest news coverage and too heavyhanded in its bias.
User ID not verified.
It must be very frustrating for publishers that articles like this keep telling people how to avoid their paywalls.
How can they invest in quality journalism if it’s seen as socially acceptable to avoid paying for something the owner has put a price on? It’s basically shoplifting.
User ID not verified.
Here is my summation of the problems with The Age/SMH:
1. At least 70-80% of the content online for both is shared. Why am I expected to cough up for separate subscriptions costing the same?
2. The Age in particular has become a bore to read. I enjoy reading long articles but too often, the ‘news’ is stuff I already knew with no behind-the-story new information. I find myself grabbing the Herald Sun if I’m at a cafe and it seems many other do the same. It’s an engaging read, even if it’s considered lower brow.
3. Get some good columnists who have an opinion and voice that’s worth listening to, regularly. It often appears like a mishmash of long-ago-made-redundant-from-Fairfax old men.
4. The digital versions are just terrible. Totally agree with Miranda. It’s click-bait central and blatant cross-promos, which is why anytime Waleed Aly or Karl Stefanovic opens their mouths it’s headline news.
5. We’re not that stupid. Treat us with some respect.
Sadly I was one of those born and bred on The Age and it now feels and reads like an ageing disgracefully old duck. It’s ugly, sad and embarrassing to watch.
User ID not verified.
@Version: if Fairfax wanted the paywall to work it would work. The fact that it doesn’t tells you all you need to know about Hywood and his “strategy”. As Miranda suggests, this guy has no idea of product or the value people put on real news.
User ID not verified.
Please, please, smh, no more real estate stories. If the home page was full of investigative reporting from the aforementioned Kate mcclymont and peers, I’d say more would pay. (Is she the only senior journo still on the payroll, though?) And for goodness sake, fix the paywall dodge. It should not be that easy to get around and screams to the public the management is not serious about digital.
User ID not verified.
@Version – It’s very much not shoplifting. If the local butcher is giving away free samples and selling the same thing I’ll take the free sample. I might not get the whole sausage but that doesn’t bother me if I’m not interested in it. I’d probably pay for Fairfax if it was paywalled although increasingly it’s day old reddit rehashing and thing’s I’ve already seen posted to Facebook. Now they’ve cut their arts coverage I’m even less interested. Tvtonight does a bette job at news about the Tv industry and Mumbrella is also very strong. Arts-Hub is good too. Along with the Guardian I don’t really need Fairfax. If the paper isn’t telling me what’s happening in my city then it loses it’s relevance.
User ID not verified.
Nail on the head. What content? All SMH articles these days revolve around a catchy headline with a ‘story’ that usually adds nothing, or plays on the cute innuedo of the headline or is smear / payback or advertorial. It’s addictive like Macca’s chips, but its also easy to get bored of the lack of substance. I for content I read Crikey, Guardian, Economist, Conversation and New Matilda instead.
User ID not verified.
Maybe if the IT department at Fairfax were as smart as the ones at NEWS they could figure out how to max out article reading at 30 per month even while using the private browsing function in Firefox. Why pay (or complain about clickbait) when you can read as many articles as you wish in private browsing mode without handing over coin.
User ID not verified.
You’re right in many ways, Miranda. But let’s remember that the SMH has significantly more digital subscribers than The Oz. As I mentioned in the other thread, recent growth for The Oz and News Corp tabloids is likely to have come from their free tablet promos. They are willing to burn cash to get their numbers up.
But I totally agree that Fairfax digital subs will continue to decline if they insist on click bait, churnalism etc. Fairfax papers MUST stand for quality, and for holding powerful interests to account. They are still pumping out top notch investigative journalism, while the News Corp papers entirely rely on government drops for stories. But the cheap journalism designed to attract eyeballs and the hideous clickbait headlines in Fairfax’s digital products need to go.
User ID not verified.
Michael West’s last day at Fairfax today, tweeting “Told my skill-set not aligned with Fairfax strategy going forward.”
Unbelievable.
User ID not verified.
Top story Miranda. One of my biggest peeves from the Fairfax websites is wire copy from major overseas titles which have already had wide circulation. Many are days and up to a week old.
Also hate the guess what stories where the incident happened in Manchester or Wichita. Newspapers have always done this but in the age of Internet such underhandedness should have been consigned to the dustbin of history
User ID not verified.
Great summary, thank you Miranda.
The answer to your question for most of us Im guessing is yes, they’ve lost their voice (read brand, read purpose, read soul). As a brand they don’t represent anything anymore. They exist now only as a “consultant developed strategy” to optimise the exit of institutional shareholders who regret they stayed the course so long. Components of that strategy include:
* cut costs very aggressively until you find the line where you are sustainable and you reveal the more saleable assets
* try be digital with what minimal money, ideas and passion you have and hope you can make that work in some way – even though there’s not much evidence you can
* sell a line to everyone you are a content centred company with a purpose when you aren’t, to keep the troops morale at a level that will get you to the end and to give the brand some vestige of a framework
* optimise your remaining good assets like Domain, sell them high (as they likely will), then at the end sell what’s left to whoever wants it.
You can understand the strategy to some degree because there isn’t a business model for an old media company that let itself get into that state. There isn’t much of a business model for ‘old media’ per se, really.
Good people like Kate McClymont , Adele Ferguson and the like are the remains of a bygone brand and you would have to imagine they are there for strategic (symbolic) purposes only. The senior management is using them to represent to the markets and clients that Fairfax is still what it once stood for. But this is a facade that management will do much to maintain until they make it to the end.
The end of this strategy is that there is nothing left. It’s sold piece by piece and then wrapped up. It’s possibly not a bad strategy now. It is reasonably cynical though and you might argue that a different leader may have been able to pull the company out of the dive it had been in for years when Hywood started.
But from any financial perspective it’s far less risky than any sort of transformation.Both for the shareholders and for Hywood. It’s a minimalist and pragmatic financial strategy. Something you do when there is nothing else. And you might argue, there isn’t much else.
Hywood’s agenda was clear from the start and he has carried it out to a tee. He’s sold a story to markets and the staff, reduced debt and costs well, kept things stable and lucked in with some key assets (Domain key among them). He will do well himself and he probably isn’t seen in such a bad light by institutional investors. In their minds, a job well done. And in another world – not ours – it is a job well done.
In our world, where we loved what they once did, Fairfax doesn’t exist anymore. We need to move on I guess.
User ID not verified.
Looking at it another way, the SMH has by far and away the highest number of digital subscribers, while its website is the second most popular in Austalia. The Oz and News Corp tabloids barely rate in the top 10 Australian news websites. So maybe the strategy is working to an extent. Benefiting from high digital subs as well as advertising revenue from having a very popular website. I’d prefer they ditch the clickbait, but perhaps they feel this is the right balance to maintain their lead in both subs and website rankings.
The suggestion that Fairfax’s investigative journos are now merely symbolic is a big stretch. Have you seen the big investigative scoops they have been churning out of late? In the meantime, News Corp sits on its hands, or even worse, actively campaigns in favour of the corrupt.
User ID not verified.
@jeremy: so you’re thinking the instos have a clue?
The irony here is that everyone thinks Domain is something other than the consequence of Hywood’s grasping at straws. Just to take one obvious example in today’s AFR. The notional product is an elite newspaper yet it is remarkably shallow and barely recognisable as a business read. The actual paper ($4) is smaller than the pagination of the SMH Domain preprint, the cost of which is undoubtedly one reason the product people buy is so brutally shrunk. Of course the once expensive property ads have gone from the AFR. Perhaps to Domain.
Fairfax was always going to have a big shakeout but Hywoods approach has no structure or consistency other than the primacy of the Domain construct. I wonder whether it’s a mirage.
User ID not verified.
I think it is amazing they have so many paying subscribers given the content. The revenue and content model for their digital offering seems dictated by advertiser revenue/requirements. It puts into question the entire value proposition of subscriptions for their digital audience.
Fairfax is obviously a big publisher with lots of irons in the fire, but they really need to jump to a new revenue model. “Market share” of news article pageviews doesn’t really matter in a digital world where highly targeted demographics achieve premium CPM/CPC advertiser dollars.
User ID not verified.
@Sebastian: what you’re saying is that the market for ads is now presented in demographic slices with narrow targets. So the player with the biggest aggregation and best segmentation data sets the lead. We’ve known that for almost two decades. Yet Hywood is still talking about shares versus newspaper companies when Google has not only eaten his lunch, its occupying his building. He is so far on the wrong track it’s a wonder he gets home at night.
User ID not verified.
The Guardian online certainly has more vivaciousness and I would say is eating into the Age’s readership as well. When the paper went tabloid and increasingly initiated the look of NewsCorp papers, that was when the decline really started. You can’t maintain your identity and imitate all the cheapness that characterises your opposition at the same time. That, and the content has become stale. Haven’t subscribed to the online service.
User ID not verified.
As someone who owns a newsagency and is watching Fairfax walk away from our channel, your article is very succinct and gets to the heart of the issue. People won’t pay for content they don’t enjoy or value.
User ID not verified.
How does Hywood and his senior execs keep their jobs? Surely that’s the big question. Talking down his own products for 5 years whilst failing to build anything viable to replace it besides thought bubbles and press releases. What was the point of all those consultants? He accelerated the decline with a clear lack of commercial nous or solid networks amongst advertisers. Domain already existed yet he gave his mate Catalano the deal of a lifetime and almost everything else has been sold along the way. Now NZ and then whatever is left. It’s like they have given up, slowly dismantling themselves into the grave. Fairfax is without purpose. It exists purely to remenurare and reward those at the top. Otherwise unemployable outside of Govt jobs. Just ask their staff. They are hopeless.
User ID not verified.
The Guardian have destroyed Fairfax across almost all aspects of digital news – everything about them is better. They have a better desktop website with a hell of a lot less crap on the front page, better apps, better columnists, better coverage of live events. It’s also free and it’s cheap to remove ads if you wish.
I would say almost everyone who would have bought a digital sub but hasn’t is reading The Guardian. Print newspapers are dead and alliances to the old guard are dying. Fairfax really needs to get its shit together.
User ID not verified.
Enjoy the morning print version – easy to read with breakfast but also catch up with the thru-the-day releases, but the Guardian provides a lot of depth – here and in the USA and UK, so news and comment is well covered.
But as more journalists leave, such as Michael West, Ross Gittens or the long departed and lamented Graeme Davidson, less reason to read the Age. Hence, the danger is that if the news-breaking stories (and not those soft and to me uninteresting) celebrities stories go, the Age moves to a local suburban newspaper standard – and so worth an occasional browse but not a real or a real-time contributor to sought knowledge.
The Panama papers is an example of collaborative investigative journalism that would be costly to undertake, but for me is far more important than reports of an actor’s tweets.
The problem is exacerbated by the number of good newspapers available online from the UK and USA that are free to access.
Paying for a paywall and the general celebrity news behind that is not really a need.
Problem for the Age managers – need to research their market a little more.
User ID not verified.
Their print & websites are so woefully dull it’s hard to know what Fairfax can do to save themselves. This dullness is especially boring when their click bait material is easily read elsewhere or as with Fairfax, invariably a couple of days after the rest of the world. And that infuriating ‘don’t play’ video concept (the only newspaper in the world to have this weird feature): usually a journo simply repeating some of the text you have clicked to read puts me right off. I will no longer click on article that has a video symbol. I don’t mind supporting their advertising but anecdotally many people tell me they hate Fairfax’s ‘opt out’ video concept.
User ID not verified.
This is an important issue, not only for the commercial reasons but for the often cited public interest in having viable independent news sources.
Fairfax has been the home of reliable and often valuable reporting since the 1980s when our government and regulators inexplicably allowed the primary news sources all to be merged essentially into two groups.
Fairfax’s failure to maintain its quality is obviously not a function of the Internet and its effects. It is a failure to understand and commit to unique value. That is, the news we rely on.
Unless something changes at Fairfax, which appears unlikely, the best we can hope for is that the commercial failure accelerates to make way for a well founded startup.
None of us wants a Fox News agenda for Australia.
User ID not verified.
Well said! I have long offloaded the daily routine of checking smh.com – if I really need to know what the Kardashians are up to (which I dont), then I wont be paying for the privilege. The tone and content is the hurdle hobbling this once fantastic news source. I choose The Guardian for actual news – Fairfax have lost their way. Which is sad.
User ID not verified.
so very true, and anyone who dodges the paywall has zero right to criticise the content or anything else
User ID not verified.
ok then, but by not paying you forfeit your right to complain about the quality or lack thereof
User ID not verified.
My thoughts for what its worth.
1. Guardian has eaten away at Fairfax’s target editorial readership.
2. Too many arts student type lectures from people who have barely achieved anything. People don’t like being talked down to – especially from some mid 20 something know-it-all.
3. Too many opinion pieces and not enough genuine news articles.
4. Too much focus on what Twitter is saying and what the latest ‘going viral’ issue is.
5.Barely any feel good articles. The tone is that generally the world is a miserable place.
6. Do they really need a journalist seemingly dedicated to a weekly QandA article? Why are they repeating what happened to the people who in all probability have already watched the episode.
7. We get that you think Waleed Aly is some form of god. Is there any need to remind us 3-4 times a week.
User ID not verified.
Compare the Hywood product and strategy with these words: “The digital news marketplace nudges us away from covering incremental developments — readers can find those anywhere in a seemingly endless online landscape. Instead, it favors hard-hitting ‘only-in-The New York Times’ coverage: authoritative journalism and information readers can use to navigate their lives.” Reported here: http://www.poynter.org/2016/th.....pe/413097/
User ID not verified.
Exactly. SMH needs incognito traffic so it can serve up ad impressions. If they locked that access up – they would not have enough inventory to serve up ad’s.
The quality of article is now hitting the gutter. I am amazed why any decent journo would still be at Fairfax?! Why on earth dont they group together, work from home or rent an office and set up their own thing. They will make more money and they will have a ball without dinosaurs looking over their shoulders. Still not one computer scientist on the Fairfax Board. Unreal!????
User ID not verified.