Fairfax: we’ll be charging for online access too
News Ltd will not be alone when it erects its online pay barriers in Australia, the boss of Fairfax Media has signalled.
While Rupert Murdoch’s News Ltd has been indicating for some time that it will be trying to persuade readers to pay to view its content, Fairfax has previosuly had less to say.
But today Brian McCarthy, CEO of Fairfax Media, told The Sunday Age, a Fairfax paper:
“The only way we can do it, I think, is to have perhaps two levels of entry into our websites, one being a free entry for a mass audience and then a second entry on a paid basis for more upmarket, high-quality data and information.
”Without monetisation of the online sites that the newspaper industries have operated very successfully, we can’t afford to keep the big newsroom staffs we have.”
I’m also thinking of charging for content…
That’ll be $2 thanks.
User ID not verified.
Feels like a cartel. Smells like a cartel. Charges like a cartel.
User ID not verified.
You’re pathetic fairfax – this is a fast-track to your total FAIL.
Go and die – you’r ealready dead to me and so many others anyway.
User ID not verified.
What they are going to find is that many others like trhe ABC will not charge. Google news will push those guys.
User ID not verified.
If you Google the headline and/or teaser paragraph you can usually find the story within Google.
User ID not verified.
“a second entry on a paid basis for more upmarket, high-quality data and information.”
So that free stuff is the current lowmarket, low-quality data and information you get right?
User ID not verified.
How would paying subscribers react to having to navigate through 10-16 ads a page to get the thing they’re paying for (news)?
User ID not verified.
Tony makes a good point. More ads less content.
Readers will make their own decision and with the World Wide choice, there will still be those sites that are free and will prosper.
The power is actually with the reader long-term. Sites like the ABC should see this as a huge opportunity.
User ID not verified.
I’d be interested to know how successful this “business strategy” has been for the online version of the AFR to date for Fairfax? From personal experience, I declined to purchase an online subscription as it was too cost prohibitive but certainly don’t feel like I’m missing out with the enormous amount of other informative and FREE online financial content still available.
User ID not verified.
Hey Tim,
Out of interest…have you found a way to make a buck yet out of this site? Just wondering whether it’s viable?
User ID not verified.
This will really accelerate innovation. Small operations with fresh ideas and low overheads will be the winners. Old Media organisations may increasingly be seen as mere revenue-hungry “middlemen”. Very little of what the Aussie Media Cartel sites put out is original anyway. And for hard-hitting real journalism, very few of them come close to the sort of output that the ABC manages with, for example, Four Corners.
It’s funny how these big corporations never think that it’s their product that’s to blame.
Also notice how little sympathy there is for the Aussie Media Cartel ? People don’t like Old Media, don’t trust them, and certainly don’t want to pay.
User ID not verified.
On a slightly different note, however topical: The Guardian newspaper online charges something like 20 pounds a year and you can receive their online copy without adverts…
On Faifax charging:
Yep – a good opportunity for the ABC here, however the type of visitor to the tabloids (SMH online, News.com.au) is a different reader to those frequenting the ABC online.
It will be interesting to see how this all pans out.
User ID not verified.
@Adam re tabloids
I think that tabloid readers are:
1) the least likely people to want to pay
2) after information which is typically non-exclusive wire content anyway
User ID not verified.
The MSM can charge for reading indepth or all news and opinion at the likes of Fairfax websites but I can read………….at so many other free government and non-government websites. Plus get no charge email daily/weekly updates or media releases from many of them as well.
Don’t need you at all for political news. Don’t want you for inane celebrity/entertainment news. Don’t even require you for weather reports when the Australian BOM website does such a good job.
When I want to follow a breaking disaster/ big news event I suspect that free-to-air television and Twitter will give me plenty to go on with.
If I feel a need to read the comics or do crosswords – well I can buy very cheap specialist paperbacks for that.
So Mr. McCarthy, what are Fairfax online mastheads good for again?
Certainly not for lining the bottom of the cocky’s cage – no paper! 😀
User ID not verified.
Hi McIntrye,
Thanks for the question.
For us, we’ve a fairly low cost model. But we think it’ll pay. You may have noticed a couple of ads on the site. We also carry some on our email newsletter. And we occasionally organise events, such as the forthcoming Mumbrella Question Time. That’s what (hopefully) pays the bills.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
“If you Google the headline and/or teaser paragraph you can usually find the story within Google.”
Not if there is a general failure of commercial news media. If an alternative business model to the traditional advertising support is not found there will be no news content to search on the net (except that provided by state-owned media). Google does not produce news.
“This will really accelerate innovation. Small operations with fresh ideas and low overheads will be the winners. Old Media organisations may increasingly be seen as mere revenue-hungry “middlemen”. Very little of what the Aussie Media Cartel sites put out is original anyway. And for hard-hitting real journalism, very few of them come close to the sort of output that the ABC manages with, for example, Four Corners.
It’s funny how these big corporations never think that it’s their product that’s to blame.
Also notice how little sympathy there is for the Aussie Media Cartel ? People don’t like Old Media, don’t trust them, and certainly don’t want to pay.”
Again, the small nimble operators won’t be doing a tenth of the actual footslogging journalism that mainstream nwes organisations do. With respect to Tim, he hasn’t got a newsroom full of reporters that he can send out on stories. Nor does Crikey. And I don’t believe that the public can or will take the place of professional journalists.
It’s a shame people can’t see past their irrational hatred of “Old Media” to the fact that most of what they know is being originated there. Sure the ABC does a great job too, but without a paying commercial model you will soon see the difference.
So get over your hatred of Murdoch or whoever and cncentrate your minds on perhaps contributing something original and innovative to the debate. Need is a great motivator and you can bet that News Ltd and Fairfax have some of their best minds doing just that.
User ID not verified.
Well said, Jonathan.
User ID not verified.
Cheers Burrowed.
Good luck. Seriously.
User ID not verified.
Mr Este,
I think you being deeply mired in the Old Media world for decades has somewhat coloured your view. There is a much bigger world out there.
You take the usual corporate view that:
1) The content that commercial print media is offering is just fine
2) That if commercial print media fails then we’ll all be worse off
Commercial print media is on the nose. Has been for years. People generally dislike journos and the huge corporations that employ them. And this is *despite* the best efforts of those same media organisations to portray themselves in the best possible light. Why is that ? Really stop and consider that. Why do people hate journos ?
And the world changes. Business economics change. The mix of media changes. Technology changes. Economies of scale can work both ways. Print media is becoming unviable in its present form.
People don’t like monopolies or duopolies. They don’t like being fed formulaic BS. To a degree I think the overwhelmingly negative response to this charging model is a form of people power. A chance to give a couple of these greedy corporations a good kicking on their way down.
Their demise will be a “soft revolution” in news and easily replaced by a dozen different new media models, many of which are already starting up. Look around.
To me, Old Media is most of all guilty of hubris. They have such a ludicrously inflated opinion of themselves and their role. They just can’t see past it.
User ID not verified.
Mr Smithee,
I agree that the Old Media (or legacy media, as they call it in the US) will have to do what it does far better: with more authority, accuracy, relevance, etc, if it wants people to pay to consume its wares.
But this doesn’t affect my original point: generally speaking it is the commercial media plus, in countries lucky enough to have them, a strong, independent public broadcaster, that supplies the bulk of the facts that make up the basis for everyday news reporting.
Some small independent niches will undoubtedly work (are already working, and woohoo!, I’m all for that – competition breeds better babies). But the bread and butter, day-to-day chasing up of contacts for news stories that paid reporters do as a matter of course may not survive the collapse of the commercial news model.
Smithee, I’m all for a plurality of voices in all the arenas in which I am vitally interested and, given the right opportunity, I would pay to continue being able to access a broad range of specialist news/comment in those areas while getting my day-to-day news headlines from the free sites.
I suspect (hope) that commercial news operations will subsidise their day-today news service (which will remain free) by really investing properly in areas they feel they can make their own. Perhaps you’ll get really strong competition over those areas, too, and we’ll get a really enhanced level of coverage.
As for hating journalists, why would you? The vast majority are (slightly obsessed) working stiffs who love chasing stories or putting together really good news packages and who get a buzz out of seeing their work in print – and who doesn’t? Some are extraordinarily driven by a sense of public duty, others are in it for the long lunches and like to look at themselves in the mirror while mouthing the word “columnist”.
The vast majority just want to feel as if they are doing a good job. Like most working stiffs, as a matter of fact. But then I have, as you say, spent too long working with journalists.
User ID not verified.
I’ve been chewing over the numbers for newspaper websites. I’d say subscription systems are the only workable model for publishers.
The problem is most of them at present appear to be more expensive than having news squirted on to mashed-up dead trees, freighted around the country and sold by a shopkeeper who takes a 25 percent cut – check my numbers here:
http://billbennett.co.nz/2009/.....challenge/
and let me know if I’m way off track.
User ID not verified.
If the problem for news media is funding for journalism then how about increasing the cover price of the print product?
I hear you say ‘people will not pay any more for printed newspapers, circulation will be forced down’. If that is the case then people will not pay for news whatever the medium. So put up the cover price of the printed product and let’s find out!
(You could even give people a password with their newspaper so they could read online for the day/week if you wanted.)
User ID not verified.
Pretty soon something is going to happen in a sunny northern state that will blow the ‘pay for news online’ desperados out of the water. When Fairfax and New Ltd finally figure out what’s happened it’ll be too late. NO-ONE WILL EVER HAVE TO PAY FOR NEWS ONLINE. Remember you heard from the tree-hugger first.
User ID not verified.
I notice the content on Mr Este’s Future of Journalism site is sandwiched between the union logo on one side and News Ltd.’s on the other — and that sums up why his views can’t be taken seriously, except by medical professionals interested in extreme examples of delusional self-regard.
Start on the left of the screen, with the union. This is the body that runs the Walkley Awards and allows only union members to enter. Ah! So “quality journlism” is top-shelf only if it originates from the keyboards of dues-paying members of an industrial organisation. Rather a narrow horizon, don’t you think?
The second Walkley gripe concerns the judges. In one recent and memorable year, the serial plagiarist Phillip Adams served as a judge, despite having been exposed by Media Watch and an industrious blogger. Margot Kingston, who advocates not flushing your toilet and believes Americans have perfected an anti-gravity machine was another arbiter of excellence. On a petty note, she also can’t punctuate to save herself, and surely that is a consideration in “quality journalis”? One award went to an SBS radio special that was broadcast in a language none of the judges could understand, but which struck them as “exciting” — no doubt because it took a critical line toward John Howard.
Paul McGeough was honoured with an award for a story which the presenter (and I’m paraphrasing) described as a scoop, while simultaneously uttering grave doubts about its veracity. Again, its winning element was an implicit critique of George W. Bush, John Howard and Iraq. As union membership declines, perhaps Chris Warren might consider replacing the Walkleys gala with a game of soggy biscuits. His members would find it more pleasurable, and there would be no need to rents dinner jackets.
And News Corp? Well, many observations could be made, but let one suffice. Any company that controls as much of the dead-tree market as this one is not interested in change. Did Olivetti and Royal advocate the word processor?
The house of paper is coming down, Mr. Este. And we’ll all be better off when it does.
Incidentally, what “quality journalism” is available in News Ltd.’s tabs? Don’t think I’d be paying for the latest cavalcade of soap stars’ amorous misadventures and photos of cute pets with funny haircuts.
User ID not verified.
Just to bring a bit of accuracy to this discussion, it’s important to note that the Walkley Awards are not restricted to members of the union.
Plenty of non-members enter but they are required to pay an entry fee. Paid up members do not pay an entry fee. Members and non-members are encouraged to enter.
My experience is that MEAA members and non-members alike regard the Walkleys as an important event that recognises and celebrates quality journalism.
The Walkeys are not perfect by any means, but without them Australian journalism would be much poorer.
Declaration: yes, I am a paid up member of the MEAA.
User ID not verified.
Thank you for that, Peter. In the interests of “a bit of accuracy”, perhaps you might care to state the cost of a non-member’s entry. Rather a large amount, if I remember correctly, especially if your non-unionist is silly enough to file several entries.
No doubt you were too busy to address my other point: How can a competition dedicated to the celebration of excellence appoint a plagiarist to its panel of judges?
I’ll await your response, but won’t hold my breath.
User ID not verified.
Apologies for my vehemence, but Peter’s smug certainty that Australian journalism would be impoverished without the Walkeys has me nicely wound up, so one more observation. IF he really wants to know what is beggaring Australian journalism, he should look at this morning’s ABC audit numbers.
Fin Review down 8+%. Fairfax fish wraps down. Only paper to show substantial gains — The Oz.
Why? Well, you can read the Oz without getting a sermon (apart from the Opinion pages, where it is appropriate), the writing is lively and the content is generous. Compare and contrast with Saturday’s Age, which locks up so early the content is half a turn (at least) behind the news cycle, where reporters write for each other (and Walkley judges) rather than the punters, and the McCarthyists are pennywise and pound foolish.
From the MEAA, not a peep about that. Sure, gripes about subbing being outsourced, but nothing about the decline in quality, as the punters would see it. Of course, if you are Chris Warren, the dredging-the-bay-to-death nonsense and campaigns to turn off lights are sermons pleasant to the ear of a choir of Walkley judges. And that’s my point — about both the Walkleys and the MEAA.
When the union stops being a paid-up, card-carrying affiliate of one particular political party and speaks for journalism as a whole, then there might be some point in paying dues. Until then, the MEAA is beneath contempt.
User ID not verified.
Lobsterman (or whoever you are)
I don’t know about being smug, but at least I’m accurate and don’t hide behind an alias.
The details of the Walkleys are online and the entry fee is $260 per entry for non members.
As for the ABC audit report you point to, we gave it a prominent run on the ABC’s “AM” program this morning pointing to the declines at the AFR.
Just a suggestion. Perhaps if you make this debate less personal and vitriolic, you might get inspire a decent discussion about the wider issues you have raised.
Peter
User ID not verified.
$260 a pop! As I said, a very steep entry fee for non-unionists. Four yarns entered and I’m out of pocket $1000 — with no hope of taking home a little something for the mantelpiece, given the leanings of the judges outlined in my original comment.
As for my identity, well, it’s a very small industry, and as your bristling response indicates, criticism of the status quo is poorly received. This site avails posters with the opportunity to post under a nom de blog. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the proprietor.
I will take your criticism of anonymity to heart when newspapers and your ABC renounce the use of unnamed sources in news reports, as they should. A refusal to be spoon-fed tidbits, to become the kept creatures of cynical manipulators, would be a splendid step toward rehabilitating a diseased industry’s reputation and relevance.
User ID not verified.