Fairfax journalists pass no confidence motion in company’s restructuring consultations
A day after journalists at News Corp in Brisbane voted that they had no confidence in their management, journalists from Fairfax have voted they have no faith in the restructure processes being carried out by their own bosses.
Mumbrella can reveal that journalists from The Age in Melbourne and The Sydney Morning Herald passed three resolutions this afternoon, including one in support of their peers at News Corp.
The first part of this resolution — criticism of senior Fairfax management for failing to provide a vision for the business beyond cost cutting — is par for the course (albeit quite true) . But the other two parts point to something else going on internally. Firstly the resolution “criticises the company’s failure to provide an ‘executive senior enough to discuss revenue measures as well as cost-saving measures’.” What is this about? What executive are they referring to? And secondly, the staff have called on Fairfax MD, Chris Janz, to provide a job description for editorial boss Sean Aylmer. What is behind this? Are these two resolutions connected?
The journos at both News and Fairfax have highlighted a very valid point – the executive teams’ “plan” at both newspaper businesses seems to consist entirely of cutting costs with no articulated or coherent plan for growing revenues . At Fairfax, Hywood fooled the analysts for a few years with talk of numerous “exciting” new revenue streams – events , data , marketing services for small businesses – none of which have come to anything .(the very highly paid boss of the so-called events business, and a good mate of Hywood’s, left the business recently so clearly nothing much happening there) . Why are the board and all those allegedly smart analysts not asking fairfax executives the same obvious questions around revenue that the journos are? Forever cutting costs without any plan to grow revenues does not a strategy make.
Good point whats the plan. Mumbrella – November 7, 2013;
Hywood said: “Adam Warden has come on board to oversee our transformation program, with both cost and revenue objectives. Adam’s responsibilities include maximising our performance in a number of areas where we are looking to substantially develop our business – events, content marketing, SME digital and marketing services and data.”
Why hasnt the AFR (or mumbrella) done a review on the success of Hywood’s big revenue strategy? They gave McEvoy’s appointment a big run at the time, as did mumbrella at its conferences. But not a word since on the disaster that was or any of these other areas that don’t even exist anymore.
Yes, well so much for that transformation. Never happened and (yet another) high priced recruit came and left. Beats me why the board/shareholders/market commentators have never held Hywood accountable for all of the big plans and “transformational” changes he has announced over the years that have come to nothing. Suckers for spin, I guess….
The real elephant in the room … who will be left to even have this conversation in the public arena once the editorial cuts take effect? With the usual duopoly situation in metro print media in Australia – and both sides cut to the bone journalistically – enterprise can do as it pleases without fear of exposure via media outlets (other than Mumbrella of course, but that is arguably an audience of the converted).
Businesses in declining industries have always cut costs.
Is media any different to mining, banking, retail?
Of course it is. Journalism is essential to the public interest to keep government and business accountable. News and Fairfax journalists answer that call. That’s admirable, and at its highest level their content is world class.
But quality journalism is tax funded through the ABC. If reader and advertiser money can no longer support outdated news business models because the money has followed audience migration, it is management’s job to change the model to sustain profits. Should shareholders tolerate declining profits in the interest of quality journalism? They already pay taxes to keep the ABC operating.
If journalists have no confidence in the decision makers, their complaint must go to the board that appointed them.
Every person in a declining industry who is made redundant is forced to find alternative employment. Journalists have the vocabulary and platform to complain that they’re different.
But they’re not.
Most of what filled the papers in the “good old days” wasn’t keeping govt and business accountable. It was fleshed out media releases, classifieds and display advertising. All these things have found ways to continue profitably, outside the newspaper businesses.
“Investigative journalism” as such is a precious and expensive thing, and needs appropriate business models for funding it.