Age vs Herald Sun vs society changes - Observations

[stui magpie]

Ok, the last 2 days I've got the train into the city in the morning, something I haven't done for consecutive days for 8 years. As per old habits I bought a newspaper at the station each day, unlike old habits now that the Age is a tabloid size, I bought it on one day.

So, observations and comparisons.

Firstly, it was seriously noticeable on the train compared to 8 years ago that almost no one was reading a news paper. Just about everyone, regardless of age, was connected to a smart phone or tablet in one way shape or form.

When buying the print editions, the first thing that struck me was the price difference. (both prices from memory, if I miss by a bit sue me) The Herald Sun was $1.20, the Age was $2.30. That's a big difference.

We do a bit of recruitment advertising where I work, we don't do print anymore but I saw the figures recently of how they work. The Age has significantly less circulation than the Herald Sun, yet charges significantly more for it's advertising. That's the approach of a niche player trying to work on some quality angle, not a serious business plan surely?

Online is similar. To sign up to the Herald Sun online is basically half the price of the Age.

Down to content, I could read the Herald Sun pretty much cover to cover in the 35 minute train ride, I barely got through 40% of the Age. The Age has a lot more content in the paper, articles are longer and more detailed, although not all interesting.

Fairfax is heading down the gurgler financially so it seems, based on my observations it would seem to me that their business model is not working.

Comments?

[Dave The Man]

They are only there to make Money

[Brenny]

I much prefer the age over the sun. But I don't always wan to read massive stories, so I read the sun.

If I'm on a train I read the news on my phone.

View the age in incognito and you can read as many as you wish each month.

[David]

I think the prices are broadly reflective of circulation figures and quality of content. Which is not to say that The Age is particularly flash these days, but The Herald Sun is definitely the fast food of the newspaper world. I think it's sad to think that it will soon be the only Melbourne newspaper available in print or online.

[HAL]

The first one, I think.

[Tannin]

Interesting thoughts, Stui. Some random thought-bubbles by way of response.

For $2.30 the Age provides enough readable content to keep the average adult amused for between 10 and 20 minutes, half an hour if you stretch it out by reading some of the boring bits, and provides about 60% of the Recommended Daily Allowance of useful news and information, but around 30% of the Maximum Daily Dose of counter-factual brain poison.

For $1.20 the Herald-Sun provides enough readable content to keep the average adult amused for between 2 and 5 minutes, 10 or even 15 minutes if you are desperately bored and don't have a Corn Flakes packet handy. It provides about 20% of the Recommended Daily Allowance of useful news and information around 150% of the Maximum Daily Dose of counter-factual brain poison.

The Age, in other words, costs about one-quarter of what the Herald-Sun costs once you allow for the difference in portion size.

The difference in classified advertising rates reflects the market's assessment of the difference in reach. The Herald-Sun reaches a lot more readers but most of them are poorly-educated and very few of them are in positions of power or influence. The Age is directly targeted at better-educated, more intelligent, more literate people - in other words, at the very people you want to reach out to if you are advertising, say, a position for a pharmacist or an engineer or a university lecturer. If you want to sell a Rolex watch or a BMW or a house in Brighton, 90% of the readers you want to reach will read either The Age or the Financial Review.

In addition, The Age has always been the paper for employment ads, and also for real estate and a variety of other things. You'd have 23 situations vacant advertised in the Hun, and hundreds opun huindreds in the Age. Not so many years ago, the Saturday Age was a ginormous thing. It was the place to advertise anything classified, and you'd almost certainly not bother advertising anywhere else.

It seems that they still charge as though they were the one and only market leader (as they were in 1950 and 1990). I suppose they might as well do that as, frankly, even if they dropped their rates to 1c per ad, most people these days would go straight to Google anyway. Newspaper classifieds will be dead before you or me, that's certain.

The Fairfax business model is certainly not working well, but it is still working, after a fashion. The Murdoch print business model isn't a business model. Murdoch makes all his money from TV and a dozen unrelated other interests, the newspapers are something he subsidises massively in order to retain as much political power as possible. it doesn't all show in the accounts 'coz he can transfer profits and hide the detail, but it is well known that the Australian, for example, doesn't just run at a loss, it has never made a profit. It's not really a newspaper at all, it's Rupert's vanity rag.

[David]

I think there's a big difference between The Australian and the Murdoch tabloids, Tannin. The former, as you say, is an unsustainable vanity project. The latter still dominate their markets and do pretty well (well, as well as a print newspaper can be expected to do in this day and age). Rubbish sells.

[think positive]

[Wokko]

What unmitigated pretentious crap Tannin. Oh, how the great unwashed must vex you so.

The Herald Sun sells more because it breaks news in an interesting and timely fashion and writes to its audience, as any good publication should do. It focuses heavily on football, and is consumed by AFL fans at an enormous rate compared to any other AFL news, even the AFL's own website. The Herald Sun preaches to the converted where The Age just preaches. When I want serious news coverage I'll go to The Australian, and yes it runs at a loss but the HUN makes the cash for it. The Age unfortunately simply runs parallel to its own stablemate the Fin Review. The Market the Age wants is taken up by the niche papers, The Fin Review and The Australian so it languishes behind the Herald Sun.

If Fairfax wants to raise their readership they really need to stop the Chardonnay Socialist leanings of The Age, because that set has their heads stuck to their IPads or Macbooks. The Wealthy end of town is reading the Fin or the Australian and the 'everyman' is reading the Herald Sun.

Irrelevant really, because The Age will (sadly) be dead in a decade (or less).

[HAL]

Fairfax wants to raise has a readership.

[Morrigu]

The change in employment advertising is interesting Tannin - the Age was always the place to look for jobs but no more seek.com seems to be the go now.

Shame - I used to quite enjoy taking the Age and coffee outside and perusing the jobs in the Sat Age - oh that is advertised again - hmmm maybe they ain't so good to work for......

[Wokko]

Article on News Corp profits. Mostly corporate spin they're deciphering (from News), make of it what you will.

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2014/s4001122.htm?site=melbourne

[David]

[Tannin]

Wokko, you are off the freakin planet if you think the Oz outsells the Age. Lots of places they don't even bother stocking it 'coz it sells so badly, but you have to go seriously outback before you can't get the Fin.

[David]

Further to what I wrote above, some people seem to think that you can just mark preferences for different media publications off as simply 'a matter of taste'. But it's not just 'a matter of taste' that cheeseburgers are not nutritious. It's not just 'a matter of taste' that becoming addicted to ice is bad for your neural chemistry. Why should the media we consume be any different? Sure, one might have benefits that the other doesn't have and vice versa, but there is no reason to think that these things balance out. At the end of the day, one media source is likely to be more intelligent, informative and mentally stimulating than the other, and there's no point pretending that that's not the case. Perhaps the other one has benefits such as being easy to read and being more fun, but it doesn't mean that it's an equally good source of information.