Australian Mail Online unlikely to be “a game-changer”
Nine’s deal with the Mail Online to create the most-visited website in Australia will not be a “game-changer” in the market, media experts have told Mumbrella.
Commenting on the surprise joint venture announced this morning analysts said while it was a good move to increase traffic and ad sales on the site, it will not affect the upcoming $2 billion stock market float, or the local news scene.
“It’s not a game-changer, they are putting it out there as a game changer but I can’t see that it will be. I can see the rationale for why they’ve done it, to bulk up their offering on news and global news,” said Fusion Strategy principal Steve Allen.
Journalism academic Dr Margaret Simons said the emergence of the Mail Online, The Guardian and Buzzfeed in Australia is part of a push by publishers toward global media brands.
it’ll eat into news.com.au only
Shock. Horror. Steve Allen comes up with opposing viewpoint, pokes his finger into required media. Headline delivered!
If they’re hiring local journalists then that can only be good news (even if the content leads a lot to be desired.) That said, everything’s being “globalised” isn’t it? Mags are all overseas licenses, and it’s all Starbucks, Hyundai, Red Bull and Time magazine. Despite its detractors, that’s why the ABC stands out to the contrary – amazing local content and market leading audiences to boot…
Journalism academic Dr Margaret Simons says it’s a “push by publishers toward global media brands.” But they’re ALL British media brands with a very Anglo-skewed view of the world. More Royals anybody?
err – shouldn’t that be Fusion Strategy PrincipAL Steve Allen, not Principle???
Sloppy!
@Seb,
You’re right, I’ve amended.
Cheers,
Alex, Editor, Mumbrella
Who is this Steve Allen fellow? He seems even more important than either Mum or Dad.
And that’s saying something.
$20-30m in ad revenue in year 2 – seems very optimistic.
No need for analyst to estimate mi9 revenue – it’s outlined in NEC prospectus …
Just been “watching” the five -hour summing up and verdict in the SImon Gittany case (he’s just been found guilty of throwing his girlfriend over a balcony to his death). Twitter coverage was gripping and so much more compelling to watch it unfold this way than on the “real” news sites. Just goes to show: the threat to news organisations is not from other news organisations…..
@ Shamma…. if a new news site, employing 50 journalists, can bring in $30mill in ad revenue then you’ve renewed my faith in my former career!
Interesting the way things are playing out. Fairfax abandons its demographic with a digital equivalent of soft porn. News expends vast energy to erode the foundations of The Age and then SMH and, finally, AFR. Then along comes The Guardian to pick up the Fairfax readers with a classy left of centre read. And now the Mail will chew up the audiences left behind by Rupert’s savagery. Very messy looking market if you ask me.
“If you go back to the 80s and 90s when you had many more hard copy mastheads than we have now” – this is an extraordinary statement from Simons. The internet wasn’t around in the 80s and 90s, so the media companies had all the ad revenues to themselves. But, sadly, much of that valuable classified revenue has gone to the likes of Google, Seek, carsales.com.au, and so on. So there’s less revenue which unfortunately means fewer outlets can be sustained. Her comments confirm my views on the value of journalism “academics”.
This will only speed up the demise of print newspapers in Australia. There is now a glut of online news content providers from all colours of the political spectrum. If the new Daily Mail venture relies heavily on advertising, then it will mean more competition for Fairfax and News Limited for revenue. I’m not sure the Australian market can sustain it – something will have to give.