Fairfax newspaper predicts publisher would be part of three-way merger to compete with News Corp should media reform laws be passed
Fairfax Media could look to tie up with Nine Entertainment Co and Southern Cross Austereo to “better compete with News Corp”, should the government finally pass changes to media laws this year.
An article in today’s print edition of Fairfax paper the Australian Financial Review predicts the three-way tie up between the major media companies in what is described as a “scale up”, bringing together around $4bn in combined revenues in order to compete with News Corp’s interests across its newspapers, Fox Sports, Foxtel/Ten and APN News & Media.
The suggestion comes on the same day senior government MP Dean Smith has signalled plans to abolish the reach rule will be finalised within the next three months.
“We are close to landing on a final position over the summer to be able to present a plan internally in the first quarter of 2016,” Smith told Fairfax Media.
Fair enough. The 2 out of 3 rule was always illogical because it excluded pay TV when Foxtel was a monopoly and should have been the 4th platform. So everybody else could go 2/3 but News and family (DMG) went 3/4. And now with TEN (circa 23.5% with Lachlan’s interest), and APN metro radio, (although at 15% of APN only) News has sort of 5/4.Thats newspapers, DMG, ARN, TEN and Foxtel. Maybe prescribed interests need to be restricted to 5% or zero, not greater than 15%, or no voting rights allowed at up to 15% – economic interest only.
So 3/3 lets others catch up a bit.
@ ‘roger colman’
Good response, I’d rate it a 5/7
Would be very interesting in Tasmania where both Win and Southern Cross own TDT which screens the Ten content.
@Roger.
I think you will find that the ‘2 out of 3’ rule was introduced in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. Foxtel commenced in 1995.
Make that 6/4 when you include MCN
Dodger . Stand corrected on dates. Many thanks for correction.
Off course, doesnt detract from concentration arguement, although not covered in legislation. The question of correcting the historical anomolies are now available. The writer holds shares in TEN and no other networks
I agree that it doesn’t alter the current concentration debate.
However, given that the legislation preceded cable TV and the internet (as we currently know it), and to conclude that the 2/3 rule was illogical is non-sensical. The whole idea of legislating against the future is a very scary one indeed.
Having said that, the glacial pace of both major political parties to embrace the new media landscape is both myopic and embarrassing It could be sort-of understood from one party that benefits from favourable coverage, but the other party just seems chicken-shit scared to upset Uncle Rup!
Personally I’d vote for nay party that was ‘agile’, ‘innovative’ and ’embraced the future’ but with none of the hollow rhetoric we regularly hear.
@Andy haha I understand that dank reference
There’s no value in such a merger. Two of the three have huge problems with revenue and radio is a fragile business that can tank if a big name moves shop.
Regulation should simply discourage monopoly and anti-competitive crap.