Guardian’s global CEO labels Fairfax and News metered paywall model ‘worst in the world’
Andrew Miller, CEO of Guardian Media Group
The global CEO of The Guardian Andrew Miller has labeled the strategy of the metered paywall model adopted locally by News Corp and Fairfax Media as “the worst in the world”.
Miller made the comments in an exclusive interview with Mumbrella’s sister title Encore during his visit to Australia as the local arm of The Guardian’s operation approaches its six month anniversary.
He questioned the concept of metered paywalls – giving free content to occasional visitors but asking regular visitors to pay – saying: “That to me is the worst paywall in the world – the more loyal you are the more you are forced to pay. I just don’t get that logic.”
Interesting. The Guardian folk have, up to now, had a somewhat eccliastical attachment to the freebie. Maybe the erosion of the piggybank is starting to get their attention? Anyhow, I predict they will have a paywall within 12 months.
As for the crit of oz paywalls: is that the best he can do? Surely Miller has noticed that the sites are crap? That they have allowed traffic monkeys to mess with their editorial juju? Isn’t that why they set up here?
So the Guardian Weekly will remain because, and as long as it is profitable. Fair call. So what then are the unprofitable parts of the Guardian empire (and there must be a lot since they are losing $50m/year and have been for as long as I can remember)? And when will they be closed, given their stated strategy is to stick with products only as long as they are profitable? All very well criticising those publishers who have put paywalls up but the Guardian’s alternative model can hardly be held up as being successful (ie profitable)
The paywall is problematic, but then all the models are. Eric Beecher’s article in the monthly “The death of Fairfax and the end of newspapers” – which I recently read after seeing a link from Andrew Stafford’s piece on this site – put it well. If we want “journalism” rather than pure clickbait then sooner or later (probably sooner) all we’ll be left with is the public broadcasters and the subsidisers (papers either paid for by philanthropic funds or by Foxtel’s English Premier League subscribers). Fairfax it seems, has paywall because they’ve no other options left other than even more downsizing. The Oz, has paywall I suspect with a more “optimistic” outlook because they can get away with treating their subscribers that way. I don’t want to be offensive but its true that the Oz is unique in having a significantly older, significantly less tech-savvy readership than most papers. The kind of people you can charge for a product others are offering free. This gives a few years, a tiny trickle of extra cash – but in the end its not a good system and it will eventually end as the readerships that puts up with it quite literally dies off. But until that day comes, they will enjoy the tiny bit of extra money.
On a side note the Guardian coming here interests me a great deal purely because I have to wonder why it took so long. Surely they could have come years ago and hoovered up the money that existed back then. Just gotta wonder why the international media organisations took so long to figure out Oz was crying out for a competitor.
@ Well he would that: Quite. The Scott Trust which subsidises the Guardian’s highly unprofitable operations is a finite resource. That subsidy will be turned off in the not-too-distant future. Then we’ll see how the Guardian goes about competing in the real world…….
As both Fairfax and NewsCorp have suffered massive across the board hits in circulations and subscribers for print and have provided fuzzy numbers for their digital, none of this should be any surprise. I won’t be paying Fairfax’s outrageous subscription costs. Not only DON’T Fairfax reward loyalty, they actively discourage it. As a long time SMH subscriber, I get no refund on my print subscription when I don’t wish to receive it if away but am told that it’s because I can access the digital version. I don’t either are the same. Add to the fact that the SMH’s cover price increased and you’ll get some sense of the ridiculous nature of Fairfax’s attitude to paywalls etc. I currently pay US$0.99 per week for the NYTimes digital for quality journalism and a great site. Let’s see Fairfax and News Corp do as well and stop taking Australian readers for a ride.
I think it’s pretty easy to see how The Guardian will survive in the real world: it is one of very few newspapers from any country that is transcending national borders and becoming a global brand, the others include The Financial Times, The Daily Mail and The New York Times.
The New York Times has a disadvantage as its name refers to New York and in the same way Sydney Morning Herald would be disadvantaged but if Fairfax have any ambition why aren’t they launching The Age in the UK and the US?
Meanwhile The Guardian can pay someone not much to provide an article about parsley and feta pies and monetise it with far more traffic in AU, US and UK than almost anyone else, profit can’t be far behind.
http://www.theguardian.com/lif.....fish-kofte
“The Oz, has paywall I suspect with a more “optimistic” outlook because they can get away with treating their subscribers that way.”
What claptrap. The Oz loses News a fortune every year. It’s a non-profit hanging off a profit centre, just like The Guardian.
@Bill. The Guardian has no profit centre. It has a trust, which is finite.
They might be profitable soon based on their 30 staff. But 90% of their editorial still comes from the Guardian team in london. Wait until london start to re-charge them for that content. it wont look so rosy then.
@Good Moron: and yet despite being a global brand which transcends national borders, the Guardian continues to hemorrhage money. As you say, the FT and NYT are also global brands, but they are monetising their digital audiences far more effectively with a combination of advertising and circ revenue (aka paywalls) than the Guardian is with it’s quasi-religious no-paywall mantra. Daily Mail also a global brand and is doing better revenue-wise than the Guardian but still not great given the size of its global audience.