SMI: Digital revenue surges, print collapses as ad market finishes financial year up
The latest advertising revenue numbers have continued to show the collapse of print income with magazines and newspapers down more than $56m and $166m respectively, according to data from the Standard Media Index.
While Australian advertising market finished the financial year up 1.9 per cent with an overall spend of $7.5bn, print advertising recorded double digit year on year declines with the newspaper market contracting from $997.9m in June 2013 to $829.4m last month a 16.9 per cent decline.
Metropolitan print was the worst impacted down 18.8 per cent from $653.3m last year to $529.6m in June while magazines posted a similar decline with a 17 per cent drop from $329.7m in June 2013 to$273.5m last month.
Newspaper revenues have declined 39 per cent since 2010 when SMI reports revenues 0f $1.362bn for the medium, whilst magazines are down 40 per cent from $456m that year.
Google hovering up all that ad money via Singapore putting thousands out of work while we salaried taxpayers prop up the countries infrastructure.
After 9/11 the US proved they could clamp down on tax havens that hosted terrorist funds.
It can be done. Why is si hard to make these net giants pay their fair share?
Virtually all of the digital money is going to digital, while print remains hugely overweight in dollars share relative to its actual audience and engagement. It will be very interesting to see what happens in TV when the various on demand offerings really get going in the coming year.
Apologies. I meant to say the digital dollars are Google’s.
Yes Google and in all probability FB, will be the main beneficiaries of the big increase in digital ad spend. Traditional news publishers are certainly seeing nothing like a 20% increase in digital ad revenues YoY. More likely to be low single digits – if that.
@Sam. Don’t forget that Murdoch became an American for Tax purposes and News Ltd is losing a shed load to the likes of Google. A lot of people are singling out Google, however they haven’t broken any laws and their model works for advertisers. (Btw I am not from Google.) I think that Fairfax has a bee in their bonnet about Google, News are staying quiet. Could News be staying quiet because they are in the top 10 companies in the world in terms of how many ‘tax subsidiaries’ they utilise? (Re link below, they were the 3rd biggest…)
It would be a great piece of investigative journalism, perhaps from Mumbrella..? to understand how media companies and Ssay ad agencies minimise their tax here in Australia.
http://treasureislands.org/ban.....ns-by-far/
What is best for the world? Tax money going to a nut job government, being lobbied by the likes of Murdoch = (Google pays tax and indirectly gives it to Murdoch…) OR do companies like Google get involved with community work, research and charitable causes that benefit the societies where they have offices?
Google motto is “do no evil” and whilst the conspiracy theorists will always have a problem with the powerful, I am sure happier that Larry and Sergy are at the helm of Google than if it were Murdoch.
Facts are helpful…what are you saying…that Print is currently getting more revenue than it deserves based on both audience and engagment? Interested in the rationale that brought you to that conclusion…
I wonder how much of the 100%+ increase year-on-year in money the media agencies spent through their exchanges was driven by performance rather than the huge commissions they take on this channel that they do not divulge to their clients? I know if I got a 2-3% cut for recommending TV or print compared to a 60-70% cut for recommending an exchange I owned then it would be somewhat hard to retain objectivity in decision making.
To quote the late great Kerry Packer: “Of course I am minimising my tax. And if anybody in this country doesn’t minimise their tax, they want their heads read, because as a government, I can tell you you’re not spending it that well that we should be donating extra!”
@sam is the fact that Google are minimising their tax by leveraging the legal position in Australia and the nature of their global platform to minimise tax mean they are bad? No. All multi-nationals in this country minimise the tax payable by their local operations because Australia is a high tax regime. It doesn’t matter if it is Google, Unilever, P&G etc – they all run a series of tax minimisation structures to maximise their shareholder returns and profits as they should.
Would you prefer that multi-nationals had no presence here at all so more jobs could evaporate?
Digital is not a single platform anymore and its not helpful to discuss/report it as such. To understand trends in the media market we need to report on search v display v. everything else.
Who is getting the 1.5 billion digital dollars? Is it mainly the majors, google, facebook etc?
Is there a break-up of this amount ?