‘Since when has quantity got to do with quality?’: Greg Hywood defends Fairfax job cuts
Fairfax Media CEO Greg Hywood has tried to shoot down critics who say further cuts at the publisher will mean lower quality publications saying “Since when has quantity got to do with quality?”.
‘Let’s have the quality debate’: Greg Hywood
Hywood, who has come under fire after announcing a further 120 journalism jobs will be cut at The Age and Sydney Morning Herald, penned a piece for Fairfax publications published on Good Friday entitled ‘Let’ have the quality discussion’.
In it he points to the fact the Australian Financial Review had just 25 journalists, a fifth of the number it has today, when he joined in 1975, and just 75 on the SMH, when the paper enjoyed the “rivers of gold” monopoly on classified ad spend.
If Fairfax are an example of quality journalism then I will need to lower my expectations.
Hywood in this instance makes transparent his lack of knowledge of what Fairfax news media publish today and total ignorance of past practices. He is entirely about spin and this example is in the Goebbels category.
Hywood speaks as if he has some authority. He clearly knows nothing about journalism. (And yes, I know he got an award once for writing about General Motors plans, a company he had worked for). Hywood pisses on the good intentions and commitment of very many people who chose to work at Fairfax for its values and culture.
The man is now and ever was only interested in his personal shilling.
“[W]e are focusing our journalism on the areas of their greatest interest and demand.” Now that’s a recipe for quality journalism if ever I saw one.
The debate around quantity versus quality journalism is a convenient smokescreen. Fairfax have continued to cut staff because Hywood has proven incapable of building the promised new revenue streams. Now they have almost nothing left to sell from his 5 year fire sale other than Domain so they continue cutting.
If analytics are being used to determine the usefulness of staff, how is profitable performance being measured across Hywood’s much publicised growth strategy – events; content marketing; SME (small and medium sized enterprises) digital and marketing services; and data?
Surely we don’t have to wait another 5 years to find that out whilst those at the top remain immune from cuts?
In the words of John Singleton;
“You do get bonza results if you sell your future to protect your past.”
“This Greg Hywood he does not know what he is doing so he just hires consultants to tell him what to do, and obviously he does nothing except what they tell him,”
Hywood is a “third rater, he is obviously an idiot.”
I’m reliably informed that Hywood made a very odd statement when he showed up as “temporary” CEO. Management does run a company, the board does, he said, adding that Fairfax had a brilliant collection of talent on its board. He was right in one sense: none of those managers lasted very long except for the peculiarly influential Gail Hambly.
Oops. My bad. Management does not run the company he said.
I agree. Hywood’s remuneration would suggest that quantity has nothing to do with quality.
“Since when has quantity got to do with quality?” Or put another way since when has spin and bullshit replaced substantive content?
The logical conclusion to the Hywood argument is to have just one -good- journalist. But seriously, how can a newspaper run, for example, an investigative team (wishful thinking, the old Spotlight team at the Boston Globe) without a quantity of journalists to cover the full gamut of a major media’s needs? The real challenge of changing market dynamics is to get the balance right, tweaking as you go. I suspect firing 120 in one go doesn’t qualify as astute management.
Greg has ended up with a bad sandwich structural scenario for paid quality journalism. Some key milestones are required before we can say that it’s a growth industry again. These milestones include, the retirement of Rupert Murdoch and his competitive aggression from his newspapers in Australia, the weeding out of free sites as funding fails or the business model of free journalism fails, (e.g. The Guardian group losses draw from the Trust’s cash), and the exploitation of stories across all yield platforms, print, online, and FTA. There are obviously many more, such as the max out of global penetration into Australia where printing plants were the “tariff” barrier, and, at the margin, the free ABC becoming paid. But altogether the simplest Fairfax decisions are to merge with a news and current affairs “heavy” FTA network for talent exploitation, hope the above happens sooner, and utilise the many journalists whether paid full time, part time, or crowd sourced, and mix into a heavily curated model.
It is important that Fairfax maintains platforms for stories, which it appears to be doing. The Fairfax Nabo investment is an example of crowd source localism, which fills a crowd sourced news and social vacancy at the local level that a bunch or suburban journalists cannot possibly cover.
Ultimately the customer drives profitability potential. If you don’t pay, you won’t get what you want from Fairfax. If Fairfax journalism is so bad, start your own.
@roger colman: Queer that you suddenly become a Fairfax fan after years of bagging. Looks like the Hywood spin has won you over?
The point you ignore Roger is that Fairfax must be a quality operation to have any future and Hywood is undoing it. Put simply: Hywood’s claiming clicks (or reach etc) as a measure of success, when it isn’t. the only foundation Fairfax has had or will have is a very strong engagement with a big chunk of the educated, affluent elites. No one can compete with Google and Facebook for traffic and it takes that scale to make any money at all.
No I asked him not to drone at IR events, he was so bad. We had sells since 2006 and then we have had buys since 2015. I think we’re winning on recommendations.
Applauds Ben’s comment.
But Lindsay it is “If Fairfax is (not are) and example…”. So just how low can those expectations be.