![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
tdgeek:Geektastic:howdystranger:IMO it seems reasonably clear when you look at the Herald website where they have a 'premium and in depth' section what they would charge for
Unfortunately, it is all rubbish. It is rare that anything worth writing about actually happens in NZ - and certainly they could get away with publishing weekly not daily.
I see. So ideally, all online newspapers should really remove the National section, or have the 2 validly written articles on what is happening or issues here in NZ appear once a week?
The fact is if you can't be bothered and are not interested with news in NZ or about NZ and prefer to read your home country's news. Given "its all rubbish" Ill check the Sri Lanka online news to see what is happening "in NZ" for the cricket test
NZME are assuming that about 6% of their online readership will be willing to pay for their 'premium content'. The problem is that the 6% of most demanding readers - that is, the small minority to still value in depth reporting - have already peeled off to RNZ or second tier alternatives such as Newsroom and Interest.co.nz.
It's very difficult to establish yourself as a dominant player at the low end of the market, and then convince the top end of the market that you are able to cater to their demands.
Mike Hosking was never going to go anywhere anyway, he's way too much of a ratings pull for ZB.
Geektastic:
Unfortunately, it is all rubbish. It is rare that anything worth writing about actually happens in NZ - and certainly they could get away with publishing weekly not daily.
Just like this high quality contribution of yours to the debate, eh?
I see that Stuff's 1H18 financials didnt get any mention in the press. No surprise that Stuff wouldnt talk about it but strange that NZH journos cant see their way to do any quality analysis.
So Stuff is now a "Discontinued Operation" in the eyes of Nine Entertainment. So it doesnt get talked about in press releases - and hardly in presentations.
Short story - if you though NZME's result was bad then Stuff was woeful. NZ Revenue down 15%, and EBITDA down 24%. Ouch. Worse that that Digital Revenues DIDNT GROW. In fact they went backwards slightly. No engine room for growth there. If NZH goes paywall then Stuff is bound to follow - its only hope for growth.
BTW - Associates (being StuffFibre and StuffPix) posted bigger losses this half cf pcp. No growth there either in a saturated marketplace for both businesses.
Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"
alasta:
NZME are assuming that about 6% of their online readership will be willing to pay for their 'premium content'. The problem is that the 6% of most demanding readers - that is, the small minority to still value in depth reporting - have already peeled off to RNZ or second tier alternatives such as Newsroom and Interest.co.nz.
It's very difficult to establish yourself as a dominant player at the low end of the market, and then convince the top end of the market that you are able to cater to their demands.
Yep, we currently pay $100 per annum to support the UK's Guardian as I want to support quality journalism and they have never lowered themselves to sensationalist or tabloid reporting.
Based the the crap Herald has been punting out recent years, they have no show of convincing me to give them the time of day, let alone any coin.
ockel:
So Stuff is now a "Discontinued Operation" in the eyes of Nine Entertainment. So it doesnt get talked about in press releases - and hardly in presentations.
Short story - if you though NZME's result was bad then Stuff was woeful. NZ Revenue down 15%, and EBITDA down 24%. Ouch. Worse that that Digital Revenues DIDNT GROW. In fact they went backwards slightly. No engine room for growth there. If NZH goes paywall then Stuff is bound to follow - its only hope for growth.
NZME is surviving by virtue of the fact that their radio stations are popular with baby boomers. Stuff, on the other hand, is in real trouble.
I honestly don't know who is going to buy Stuff, given that established media companies in NZ won't want to engage in a battle with the Commerce Commission and risk ending up with the same outcome and the proposed NZME/Stuff merger. I'm betting that it will be carved up, with various bits sold seperately.
Here is the Paywall announcement: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12225517
DjShadow:Here is the Paywall announcement: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12225517
Just read that article, I am sure they have the details wrong. They had a paywall year's ago, the article says:
NZME will become the first major New Zealand media business to unveil digital subscriptions – costing $5 a week, with a special introductory offer to be announced next week.
Here's an old link John Drinnan: Paywall high on agenda for new APN NZ boss
I remember a radio interview, I think last year, when the person at NZME was caught out not even knowing about the previous paywall.
There is plenty wrong with that article...
I would (rightly or wrongly) assume that Premium Content is a new thing - maybe they've sent the journalistic contributors on a course, or they've hired some new staff. Nothing I have seen to date really amounts as premium content (especially articles about what's on TV or opinion)... Any idiot can write an opinion piece (you're reading one right now) and it neither takes research, skill or a whole lot of talent to write a puff-piece...
timbosan:DjShadow:Just read that article, I am sure they have the details wrong. They had a paywall year's ago, the article says: NZME will become the first major New Zealand media business to unveil digital subscriptions – costing $5 a week, with a special introductory offer to be announced next week. Here's an old link https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11251996 I remember a radio interview, I think last year, when the person at NZME was caught out not even knowing about the previous paywall.
Here is the Paywall announcement: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12225517
Two hundred and sixty bucks a year. It had better be really goddam premium content for that kind of outlay. I'd be a bit pissed off with trashy celebrity gossip and old Mrs Madge Fugglesworth's pussy stuck up a tree, etc.
DarthKermit:
Two hundred and sixty bucks a year. It had better be really goddam premium content for that kind of outlay. I'd be a bit pissed off with trashy celebrity gossip and old Mrs Madge Fugglesworth's pussy stuck up a tree, etc.
What a dilemma for the Herald. Put their ' opinion' pieces behind the paywall and find no-one willing to pay for the 'premium content' or leave it free , and bring down a few egos!
Saw the price of the Herald at a newsstand the other day, was shocked it was over $3!
Used to be in the world of newspapers that the sale price of the paper only ever covered the cost of the printing (paper etc) and the distribution. The money that paid for content came from advertising revenue (which used to hover around the 65% to 82% mark - yes that's right - that much of your newspaper is advertising...
ben28:
DarthKermit:
Two hundred and sixty bucks a year. It had better be really goddam premium content for that kind of outlay. I'd be a bit pissed off with trashy celebrity gossip and old Mrs Madge Fugglesworth's pussy stuck up a tree, etc.
What a dilemma for the Herald. Put their ' opinion' pieces behind the paywall and find no-one willing to pay for the 'premium content' or leave it free , and bring down a few egos!
Saw the price of the Herald at a newsstand the other day, was shocked it was over $3!
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |