More jobs to go at Fairfax as Financial Review Group sends copy subbing jobs to NZ

Fairfax Media has announced that it plans 13 redundancies at the Financial Review Group as it outsources further production and subbing functions to its NZ operation.

The “streamlining” move will see the FRG group move into line with the sister Fairfax Metro Media titles with subbing of titles such as the Australian Financial Review and BRW moving from Sydney to New Zealand.

According to an announcement from Fairfax: “The proposal has been prepared after a detailed review of FRG operations. Staff are being fully briefed on the changes and a detailed consultation process has begun.”

The statement went on: “FRG, like every media business in the world that is committed to its future, is changing and improving the way it delivers journalism and services. Its cost base is being reshaped to match the business and it is changing the way it delivers its journalism and services to better meet the needs and expectations of its readers.

“The proposed copy sub-editing arrangements would assist in the streamlining of the business and deliver significant cost efficiencies while ensuring the masthead, magazine titles and digital platforms remain high quality news sources of choice for FRG’s loyal readers.”

Fairfax Editorial Services in NZ will take on the work of copy subbing. A total of 13 full time equivalent posts will be made redundant with staff retained in Sydney for web production, design and layout and page output. Journalists’ union the Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance has been notified, Fairfax said.


  1. Chur Bro
    23 Jan 13
    4:46 pm

  2. Does this mean we can expect more references to Prime Minister Baillieu and Prime Minister O’Farrell?

  3. Lindsay.
    23 Jan 13
    5:06 pm

  4. Given Fairfax has got little right for decades why don’t they outsource management; especially as that is where all the big mistakes are being made.

  5. Sebastian
    23 Jan 13
    5:39 pm

  6. How much dosh does Fairfax expect to save by moving 13 subbing jobs across the Tasman? Even after paying the subs peanuts in NZ, the savings surely can’t be big enough to justify the staff disruptions and the proverbial hitting the fan with more publication typos and other errors from copy subbed in NZ.

  7. Anon
    23 Jan 13
    6:02 pm

  8. This sort of finance-led short-termism is why companies like Fairfax struggle to be sustainable. Think of the tens-of-millions the board has lost over the years

    There’s a reason why Fairfax has to do this sort of thing and it’s not because of external commercial pressure.

  9. Lindsay.
    23 Jan 13
    6:11 pm

  10. Chur Bro, I think the NZ subs charge extra not to make mistakes. Fairfax can’t afford quality so they go with what ever they can get for next to nothing.

  11. Nat
    23 Jan 13
    8:27 pm

  12. If Fairfax wanted to save money they could start with the flagrant waste of money represented by its leadership. Thus is a fake saving and can only be a part of window dressing what must be even more appalling results in the next profit statement.
    Clowns and jackals are the problem and the people at the coal face are paying the price.

  13. JB
    24 Jan 13
    12:27 pm

  14. Hey Fairfax, your CORE business – writers, subs, journos – are not a cost and a burden!!!! They’re your bloody lifeblood! It’s like Neil Perry cutting costs and serving fish fingers….

  15. Ashley
    24 Jan 13
    12:53 pm

  16. As a Fairfax shareholder from the time they floated I’m definitely unimpressed by the Boards’ lack of vision. I agree with previous comments…outsource the Board, because it can’t get any worse.

  17. Cambo
    24 Jan 13
    1:46 pm

  18. It’s a simple formula people. Will there be more errors in copy? yes. Will it save the company money? yes. Is the money saved more important than the increase in errors? yes.

    And, for the record, I want a better paper and as error free as possible. But most readers care little about typos, grammar and, yes, even the odd factual mistakes.

  19. Lindsay.
    24 Jan 13
    4:00 pm

  20. Cambo, I know many people who had stopped reading the Herald because of typos and errors in fact. I do not know of one who has been attracted by typos.

  21. Cambo
    31 Jan 13
    3:25 pm

  22. Lindsay. Aye, agreed few are attracted to a paper for its typos.

    You might well know “many people who had stopped reading the Herald because of typos and errors in fact”. But ask them – do they now read the Herald online? I’m guessing these “many people” (how many is that anyway?) might well do so. So really, they stopped reading the Herald print edition for other reasons.

    So back to my original point: Is the money saved more important than the increase in errors? yes.

  23. Geek
    4 Feb 13
    5:58 pm

  24. Cambo: it’s not about typos. And it’s not about subs. It’s about the overall quality. And the audience it attracts. Simply cutting costs as Fairfax and others are doing without regard for the quality outcome is a bankrupt approach in any medium at any time.