Saturday Paper the big winner as most publishers fail to win government innovation funding
The first round of the Federal government’s oft-delayed Regional Innovation and Small Publishers’ Innovation Fund has been announced with 29 of the 186 applications being successful and only $3.6m of the announced $16m available being allocated.
Unsuccessful publishers have expressed their disappointment at the process with one telling Mumbrella four of the points they were rejected upon were factually incorrect.
Schwartz Media’s The Saturday Paper was the biggest winner from the first round of government innovation funding
A common rejection reason was that publishers lacked “a robust and transparent process for dealing with complaints about content.”
One publisher told Mumbrella they were bemused at being rejected on these grounds as they had adopted the Australian Press Council’s standards of practice.
At the time of the scheme being announced, Press Council membership was to be a criteria for successful applicants, however that provision was later dropped and replaced with a requirement that ““applicants must have a code of conduct, guidelines or similar framework relating to the provision of quality journalism. This could include adherence to the Standards of Practice established by the Australian Press Council.”
Of the winning organisations, Melbourne based publishers Schwartz Media and Private Media were the most successful.
Schwartz Media’s Saturday Paper received three grants, for two consulting projects aimed to review their customer relationship and improve their user engagement while the third was for funding to build a new digital studio.
Private Media’s Crikey picked up funding for creating a customer engagement and distribution platform while sister site The Mandarin will receive support for developing a new professional network development module for its existing CMS.
“This funding is all about helping regional and small publishers transform their businesses to increase their capacity to provide public interest journalism relevant to their communities,” said the Minister for Communications and the Arts, Senator Mitch Fifield.
“It will enable regional and small publishers to innovate across a wide range of business activities related to the production of civic journalism. This includes market research, trials of new business models, podcasts, and video capability.
“The ACMA will open the next grant round early in 2019. I expect that more grants will be allocated in future rounds as applicants become more familiar with the Fund and its requirements.”
The full list of successful applicants is available from the ACMA website.
topics
Crikey
Innovation fund
Mitch Fifield
Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund
small publishers innovation fund
The Mandarin
The Saturday Paper
It’s fairly clear that applicants with Australia Press Council membership were generally favoured over those who don’t have it – it was a specific criteria initially and still recommended as something to adhere to despite the penny dropping that it was highly problematic as a requirement. The APC is basically a club where personal evaluation of membership applications is the general mode of entry. That’s fine, no problem but one thing it is not is transparent… they can do what they want. But in this case, it strikes me that this fund is not an exercise in assisting small publishers to innovate but to enhance the membership proposition of the APC with government-subsidised benefits.
A political point: this is another own goal from a government which seems totally unable to strike a blow for its own interests in the cultural wars. Every Liberal MP or party member who has ever read something unfair or slanted about themselves in these publications will be quite rightly asking the question why their own grants program appears targeted to reward media outlets they have little regard for.
That said it will be interesting to observe the irony next time Crikey or the Saturday Paper smash the government over funding to Foxtel for women’s sport or the like. Let’s test their robust and transparent policies when the letters to the editor about pot and kettle arrive….
User ID not verified.
Hmmm… either there were no West Oz submissions or none were granted … thinks ….
User ID not verified.
As yet another publisher who was rejected on four patently false points, the most disappointing aspect of the whole process was the lack of transparency, communication, and opportunity for a right of reply.
While theoretically a great initiative which could’ve helped helped a whole range of publishing businesses like ours develop great public interest journalism (in our case a site for fathers – All The Young Dads), ACMA has turned out to be yet another indictment on the incumbent government.
To think of the hours that went into the 157 applications that were rejected almost brings me to tears…
User ID not verified.
What an absolute con this process was/is. One of the criteria we were rejected on was that we apparently failed to demonstrate our organisation is a company in which Australian residents or Australian entities, either alone or in aggregate, hold a majority interest (criterion 6 under section 5 of the Grant Opportunity Guidelines). This, despite the fact that we are 100% privately owned Australian company (anyone with a computer can see this) and have only Australian residents on staff! Obviously none of our mates were on the panel. Joke.
User ID not verified.
The Australian Press Council has hardly covered itself in glory this year, bowing to pressures from The Oz to sack a board member they ‘couldn’t work with’ because she couldn’t ‘be objective’. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/02/the-australian-refuses-to-work-with-new-press-council-member-from-getup
And the idea that a small publications needs to commit to a three year memberships, so the organisation can project revenue and ensure one of the ‘big players’ doesn’t pull out and leave them in the lurch.
And transparency in member fees? It would be interesting to find out what different orgasnisations actually pay, and what model has been used to determine it. My guess is, their isn’t one.
And while I am on about it, what other body chooses to waggle their finger at non-members on their website?
https://www.presscouncil.org.au/who-are-our-members/
We kicked off discussions with the APC about membership in the first week of January – mostly re the publisher fund. It took so bloody long, our application wouldn’t have been ratified until after the fund had closed anyway.
This whole Press Council thing, and the publisher fund has been a rude eye opener.
OK. I’m going to stop now.
User ID not verified.
Beware moral hazard of depending upon a fund based upon a thought bubble to allow consolidation of large players.
One should be a little cautious in assuming this is about real innovation when it seems to reward conventional media to make or improve digital transformation, with a very very modest overall budget.
Further, quality journalism may not come into it, now viewed as an extension of media and entertainment:
‘The Australian Journalists Association (AJA) was an Australian trade union for journalists from 1910–1992.
On May 18, 1992 it amalgamated with Actors’ Equity and the Australian Theatrical and Amusement Employees Association to create the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance. The AJA section is now known as MEAA Media.’
Hopefully won’t encourage uniformity in approach of under resourced media outlets, lacking access to power that large players have or mutually beneficial two way street. However, not as egregious as seen in another nation with similarly narrow media i.e. Hungary, where all media has basically become increasingly consolidated and controlled.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/pro-orban-media-giant-fuels-fears-for-press-freedom-in-hungary-1.3722843
User ID not verified.
The Department of Communications, and the Australian Media and Communications Authority, allocated grants in an inequitable and unjust manner, potentially corrupted by unfair favouritism.
Some 14 of the 29 successful grant applicants are members of Country Press Australia, through their membership of the Victorian Country Press Association. A member of the ACMA Advisory Committee – which recommended successful grantees – was the nominee of Country Press Australia. It’s not hard to join the dots of “who you know”.
1. ACE Radio Broadcasters Pty Ltd/The Weekly Advertiser
2. Alexandra Newspapers Pty Ltd
3. Elliott Newspaper Group Pty Ltd
4. Jinki Sixteen Pty Ltd atf Numurkah Leader Unit Trust
5. McPherson Newspapers Pty Ltd (trading as McPherson Media Group)
6. Mildura Weekly Pty Ltd
7. North East Media Pty Ltd
8. North East Media Pty Ltd (second application)
9. Star News Group Pty Lrd
10. Surf Coast News Australia Pty Ltd
11. The Huon Newspaper Company Pty Ltd
12. Warracknabeal Herald Pty Ltd
13. Warragul Regional Newspapers Pty Ltd
14. Western District Newspapers Pty Ltd.
Source: Press Release by Senator Fifield. December 21, 2018
Apart from the inequity, how dumb is it to piss off 157 publishers around Australia, just prior to a Federal Election?
User ID not verified.
ACMA’s ‘Grant Opportunity Gudielines’ stipulated that grants could not be used for “building acquisition or modfication”. The Saturday Paper Pty Ltd won a grant to “build a digital media studio”.
User ID not verified.
What’s interesting
Is that we were told we met all criteria
Still didn’t get grant
Go figure!!!
User ID not verified.
I can confirm there was at least one West Australian application.
User ID not verified.
That bit is just plain ridiculous
User ID not verified.