Spinoff distress flare signals all in peril on media sea

The Spinoff last week sent up a distress flare whose red glare lit up not only a ship in peril but sent a clear message that seaworthiness cannot be judged on popularity.

In an open letter on its platform, The Spinoff’s founder, chief executive, and editor stated that the gap between the number of people who enjoy what The Spinoff does, and the number prepared to pay for it, was too large. The letter followed the worst monthly financial decline in its 10-year history, with the platform later revealing its revenue was down by a third in September.

The organisation founded by Duncan Greive appeals to a uniquely wide audience – from Gen-zers to Baby Boomers whose cultural interests are not frozen in the 60s. Its financial situation, however, has forced it to make significant staff cuts, freeze all freelance editorial commissions, put two of its newsletters to sleep, and even pause its popular Friday Poem.

The letter made a plea for donations, and mirrored what New Zealand Geographic publisher James Frankham did a few weeks ago. There was, however, one significant difference: Frankham was soliciting subscriptions while The Spinoff asked for donations.

And last weekend James Frankham told supporters that his magazine is now less than 500 away from reaching its sustainability target of 10,000 subscribers (if you haven’t done so already, put your hand in your pocket).

Subscriptions seek an ongoing commitment and can be either habit-forming or self-renewing. They have a certainty that extends beyond donations, through which a donor can feel they have ‘done their bit’ with a one-off few dollars.

I can understand The Spinoff’s reluctance to go down a paywalled path. A sizeable proportion of its audience have never paid for news and don’t see why they should start now. Their view – and their experience – is that subscriptions are for movies and other forms of entertainment.

To paywall The Spinoff would therefore come at considerable risk. However, it may well be time for Duncan Greive to open a conversation on the matter with his audience. He and his management team have been open with the public on their financial plight and their call for support. Unless an avalanche of money comes their way through donations, they should poll their users on the question of a paywall. While I sincerely hope it doesn’t come to this, it could be a simple choice: Paywall or nothing Continue reading “Spinoff distress flare signals all in peril on media sea” →

Cynical politics reported on world stage damage our reputation

‘Flashpoint’ in a foreign news story usually brings to mind the Middle East or the border between North and South Korea. It is not a term usually associated with New Zealand but last week it was there in headline type.

News outlets around the world carried reports of the hikoi and protests against Act’s Treaty Principles Bill, with the overwhelming majority characterising the events as a serious deterioration in this country’s race relations.

The Associated Press report carried the headline “New Zealand’s founding treaty is at a flashpoint: Why are thousands protesting for Māori rights?”. That headline was replicated by press and broadcasting outlets across America, by Yahoo, by MSN, by X, by Voice of America, and by news organisations in Asia and Europe.

Reuters’ story on the hikoi carried the headline: “Tens of thousands rally at New Zealand parliament against bill to alter indigenous rights”. That report also went around the world. So, too, did the BBC, which reaches 300 million households worldwide: “Thousands flock to NZ capital in huge Māori protest”.

The Daily Mail’s website is given to headlines as long as one of Tolstoy’s novels and told the story in large type: “Tens of thousands of Māori protesters march in one of New Zealand’s biggest ever demonstrations over proposed bill that will strip them of ‘special rights’”. The Economist put it more succinctly: “Racial tensions boil over in New Zealand”.

In the majority of cases, the story itself made clear the Bill would not proceed into law but how many will recall more than the headline? Continue reading “Cynical politics reported on world stage damage our reputation” →

No news is not good news

The University of Auckland alumni magazine Ingenio has published a commentary I wrote as part of my campaign to increase public awareness of the consequences of allowing journalism in this country to deteriorate to the point where it is effectively dead. You can read the commentary here.

An arid outlook for local media and local democracy

New Zealand is about to feel the widespread effect of one of the consequences of media climate change – news deserts.

NZME’s announcement last week that it is “proposing” to close 14 of its community newspapers – that is a nice way of saying it has already decided to do so – will leave gaping holes in local reporting. Journalists, whose sole task is to tell people what is happening in their small communities, will lose their jobs.

The story, reported with uncharacteristic frankness (about itself) by the New Zealand Herald, also mentioned that the announcement came on the heels of major cuts this year by TV3 and TVNZ.

There is, however, a significant difference. TV3 contracted Stuff to fill the hole it created by closing Newshub, and TVNZ has sufficient means to cover news and current affairs even if it does so in reduced form. Once the NZME community titles go, residents will be deprived of vital links to information.

The Herald’s Shayne Currie, made no bones about it. He described the closures as “a body blow to local news in many New Zealand regions”, adding: “In some regions, these titles are the only source of local news, covering their local councils and other public bodies.” Continue reading “An arid outlook for local media and local democracy” →