Job cuts, one brand and the future: Will Fairfax get it right this time around?
Over the years, Fairfax Media has made a series of missteps as it tried to transform from a traditional media company to a digital one. This time around, Mumbrella’s Miranda Ward sees signs that lessons have been learned.
If there was ever an example of a publishing company that failed to get the transition to digital right – it’s Fairfax Media.
It’s the classic case of a publisher unsure of what step to take next in order to better make money, and to do so more efficiently, in a fast-changing media landscape.
When Chris Janz was handed responsibility for Fairfax’s metro division – which houses the likes of The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and The Australian Financial Review – the writing was on the wall. It was clear Fairfax was serious about its attempt to transform itself into a digital-first company – if Chris Janz, the former boss of Allure Media, can’t do it, no one can.
SMH has made Domain a success with pushing traffic to them. If they hadn’t of done that then the newspaper wouldn’t exist. Get it
Inferring that Fairfax are going to reverse their dumbing down of smh.com.au is a big stretch from the parts of the memo you have published. It also ignores the inconvenient truth that Fairfax have already killed off most of the integrity in the masthead, and there may be no turning back.
Content quality aside, their presentation on digital has evolved to a point where a piece of news sits alongside intentionally disguised advertising, alongside gossipy, you’ll-never-guess-what-happened-next clickbait, a serious longform investigative piece, and a disconnected feature-length piece of video they’ve hooked in from some affiliate. In short, it’s a total mess and I don’t understand what they are any more. SMH.com.au is certainly the best friend The Guardian has.
Miranda, why would think Allure Media is a benchmark? You say yourself that the alignment if the SMH is with Kate McClymont. Then you quote a memo that talks about “the important stories” as if that’s what Fairfax is focused on.
If you want a real live version of a digital influence on a news organisation I invite you to compare what Bezos is doing at the Washington Post with today’s SMH. It’s very clear that Fairfax mastheads will post literally anything to drive traffic to Domain. It’s a doomed and extremely short term strategy.
What Fairfax needs to do is reclaim lost political ground by abandoning its heavy Left bias. It’s suffering for the same reason that Hanson and Bernardi are gaining strength at the ballot box while copping it in the Fairfax press – in our democracy, many voters don’t agree with the SMAGE’s editorial bent, nor are they happy about the condescending, holier than thou virtue signalling beloved of the taxpayer funded ABC and they’re making their displeasure known by siding with the Right.
I’m sure the Smage looks like Pravda compared to The Australian but it’s far from “heavy Left bias” unless you’re from the “reality has a left wing bias” school of thought. Pandering to the rabid right isn’t working for Rupert either. Just look at the figures for The Australian.
Found Gerard Henderson’s post!
If ideology was the problem I can imagine a fix. But this is about soft porn and short attention spans. In any case if you want another ideology go to the Oz.
Like every traditional news business, the reason Fairfax metro is in so much trouble isn’t the fact their digital and print brands are schizophrenic (although I agree that is an issue). It’s that the business model is broken. Print revenues are hemorrhaging (both advertising and subscription) and digital revenues don’t come close to filling the void. Digital advertising is a two horse game (google and FB) and consumers are not prepared to pay for content in meaningful numbers. Publishers will not succeed until/unless they have a strategy that addresses these problems
Suggest you check the progress of the FT, Washington Post and NYT. On current trends they will convert to fairly profitable pure digital plays.
@ Numbers: yes “fairly” profitable, and to a large extent because they are global brands so able to achieve much bigger scale than local media brands. (especially local media brands in a small market like Australia)
That is a throw away line if I’ve ever seen one.
Do you have the company EBITDA that splits print and digital to prove those statements, or insights into their strategies that suggest they are leaving print any time soon to be come pure digital? I would wager there is a lot of ‘print’ cost that is funding their digital business which is hidden behind revenue numbers.
Also, you are not comparing apples with apples. For a start FT is a niche Fin sector pub and Washpo has a billionaire owner who has invested $50M+, and by the way he runs amazon, making profit may not be high on the priority list. NYT is the only real comparison here, and they have arguably the most globally recognisable brand in news media – but still have done a fantastic job.
This is not an excuse, but rather a reflection that creating sustainable, quality journalism in this environment is tough. Look around globally, most pubs are struggling.
really?? If you paid attention you’d know that the WashPost has been a provincial paper for years with a very local strategy. Bezos has pushed it to focus on news and has certainly invested. He doesn’t report numbers but has said recently that the business is profitable. Which is a big turnaround. The FT digital balance was the first to be primarily digital. It’s print business is not a source of subsidy. The NYT does have strong ad revenues in print but it has made big steps in digital subscription and is on track to survive.
My point is that Fairfax blew up its print business with very public taking down of the future of its business. It wrecked the demographics of online viewing by chasing traffic with rubbish and soft porn. Then it faked up a Domain plan that now sucks remaining blood of the core.
To your point I don’t believe Hywood and co had a clue about viable quality businesses and have essentially taken bonuses while they ride the death train.
We absolutely need Fairfax to survive and even thrive for the good of this country. No other media outlet is so committed to investigative journalism and uncovering the crooks in politics and business. In fact, News Corp not only avoids this vital style of journalism, it actively campaigns to shut down our anti-corruption institutions. Bizarre.
I also think it is especially important in this time of hyper partisanship and populism that there is a media outlet strongly pushing the (real) sensible centre and advocating for proven and effective policies. I’m encouraged that Fairfax is suggesting they will be doubling down on this and concentrating on the stuff that makes an impact, rather than wasting time and money on the peripheral.
@the facts -not so sure that new Fairfax editorial strategy WILL see them concentrating on stuff that makes an impact rather than wasting time and money on the peripheral. The internal editorial memo that has been leaked states that “Our goal is to increase the proportion of stories that reach a larger readership. ”
It said the digital advertising business demanded stories which attract a “wide audience” and the editorial strategy was to focus on those areas.
That sounds very much an editorial strategy focussed on populism and traffic/clicks . Time will tell.
Yep you raise very legitimate concerns. People want trusted news brands to continue to prosecute issues and expose injustices in the interests of a healthy democracy and society, even if they don’t necessarily read the articles. I think it is essential for Fairfax’s brand that they continue to do this, to maintain that reader loyalty, even if there aren’t always huge clicks in it. I know that’s one pretty big reason why I subscribe. Fingers crossed.
I hope you are not basing your comments on the Guardian article.
It is a disgraceful piece, cherry picking quotes from the memo to suit their narrative, but without giving readers context (which they wouldn’t know anyway) or the full picture.
If you’ve read the leaked memo, you would see that the point re increasing the proportion of articles that reach a larger audience is about reducing ‘wastage’ (ie articles that aren’t read by anyone or very few people) and not about creating content for the sake of clicks. The NYT mentioned the same point in their recent 2020 report.
Also, the note about retaining scale is a reflection that the Metro papers do reach a large audience and they rely on advertising as one of many sources of revenue, as do most publishers. However, you can have scale and maintain quality (think NYT).
The key message of the memo states that quality, independent journalism is at the core. I for one am hoping that holds true.
Hope is one thing. The actual evidence is that the current leadership would know quality if it fell from the sky onto their Maseratis.
Miranda, you see Chris Janz as, quite possibly, the saviour of Fairfax mastheads. And yet the two businesses he presided over – The Huffington Post and Allure (both specialists in producing low-cost, low-rent content) could hardly be held up as commercial success stories.
http://adage.com/article/media.....ue/299293/
Chris has a board of directors to answer to. They have been the reason why the other MD’s have failed to deliver.
Unless he can swing an out of touch and over-aged board, I would suggest he looks for a new gig.
– Jack Matthews had been at Fairfax for a long time before he took over the MD role, had strong internal relationships, used an assertive leadership style when talking to the board and staff
– Chris has come in fresh, little to no Fairfax experience, lacks internal relationships, is quietly spoken with a sensitive tone when talking to staff
Let’s see….
Jack Matthews oversaw the clickbait infestation. A spruiker with a background in subscription tv in Japan and Playboy. Fun guy. Not at all the guy to run a serious news organisation.
Jack was the best leader within FXJ in the last 50 years because he was the one that finally introduced a digital first mantra across the org when the board were still bleating on about the cost of ink and staples rising. Jack’s boss was trying to sell “digital second” during this time, insane!
Stefan: Fairfax was “digital first” from about 1998! The digital “leaders” had a totally free run, buckets of money and no requirement to make a quid. Jack was certainly in that formula. Have a look at the result. Sad, weak web sites populated with rubbish that is purely driven by traffic numbers. The plain evidence is that the digital “leaders” – Jack included – did nothing but have a lot of fun and spend a lot of money.
Fairfax wasn’t digital first. Anyone who thinks that has no idea what they’re talking about.
Coming from an insider, Jack Matthews was up against a hard board.
He did a great job all things considered.
Clearly Peter you were on the Jack inside. Can you seriously point to a single instance where he or his predecessors did not get what they wanted?
We who lost our jobs were watching closely while the vast indulgence and lack of any effectiveness in digital was rewarded year on year on year.
Wait to TPG get hold of this puppy. $30M in savings will look a cakewalk!
“Never have journalists been more important. Never have journalists been more influential”. Nothing could be further from the truth. 30 years ago everyone received their information via a journalist. Now the disengaged receive their information from social media and the engaged receive information from wikipedia or the source.
Journalists must value add to attract an audience (and so advertisers). It is no value to write “important” peices that no one wants to read, if readers want stories on football or pop stars then that is how you remain profitable. Click bait works for a visitor but, when disappointed, they do not return.
FWIW I worked with Chris some years ago and was more than impressed with his ability to observe and analyse a situation quickly and then identify where the influencers are and how to approach them. He is softly spoken but don’t ever confuse that for weakness, indecision, or lack of ability.
Here’s hoping that the board give him the room he’ll need to bring a sense of order and balance to the Fairfax portfolio … right now their biggest challenge is the content is obscured by chaotic design and advertising and fixing that is going to cause some pain
To appoint Chris Janz to oversee this is astounding. He hasn’t run teams over 20 people. He hasn’t run a business with any large revenue streams. Huffington Post and Allure Media were American contracts and tiny. Mumbrella should ask Fairfax how they are performing. The shareholders should ask Greg Hywood how they are performing. Who is keeping Greg Hywood accountable for his ongoing mistakes? He has been a disaster.
Hywood would be (should be!) very well aware of the small size and tiny revenue streams of both Allure and Huffington Post. Fairfax took full control of Allure back in 2013, and partnered with HuffPo 2 years ago to launch the brand in Australia. Neither have performed well commercially. Both are low-cost operations which make heavy use of free/syndicated/rehashed content which seems to be the route Fairfax Metro are now taking. ie cutting (more) staff and relying more on freelancers, syndicated content etc, while still insisting they stand for “quality, independent journalism”. They are rapidly losing any point of difference they had.
The “strategy” isn’t rocket science: cut costs faster than revenues are falling to maintain the bottom line. Not a sustainable strategy – comes a time when there’s nothing left to cut. Publishers must somehow address the revenue side of the equatioin.
Australia’s management strategy. Always about expenses, never about revenue.
Fairfax should start by ditching “Independent Always”, which is demonstrably misleading and deceptive. It’s two blatant lies in one phrase, when one would have been bad enough.
Admit that it is Leftist partisan activist publication, and get on with it.
Only if News Corp admits they are a far-right agenda-pushing publisher, with stories only permitted if they fit a predetermined editorial line, no matter how inaccurate and misleading, and get on with it.
Sadly, Fairfax has given up on The Age. All their efforts are directed to and controlled by Sydney, witnessed by the message “Here’s more on the SMH’s live blog” on their so-called Age website. On Google News, nearly all news re Melbourne is channelled through the Sydney Morning Herald, and The Age presence is minimal. The Age has lost its Melbourne identity. Once warmer, funnier and idiosyncratic, it’s now simply narky and forlorn.
Does Fairfax have a computer scientist on it’s board? What are the ratio’s of men to women on the board?