A letter from the National Business Review's publisher

@ Bruce
I can confirm Barry drives a much nicer car than Bruce at Aardvark

Bruce S has been a genius for over 10 years banging on about how he has all the answers to making money online.He's been such a great success (not). I'm sure Barry will be on the phone to him straightaway!.
Bold move Barry but good on you for giving it a go.

Well Bob, I've made my living for the past 15 years through internet-based ventures (mainly news and commentary). How many others can claim that? How many such ventures have even broken even over that same timeframe?

I built a web-based news service that broke new ground and (thanks to innovation) surpassed most of the "big names" in the industry (globally) in terms of reach and unique visitors. I did that on a shoestring budget.

That venture was showcased by government at the 1999 APEC conference.

In 1999/2000 it was the world's most widely syndicated web-based news service with over 250,000 other sites taking its news-feed, and was raking in very good revenues at a time when other dot-coms were simply bleeding red ink.

I made just one mistake -- I tried to "keep it Kiwi" and sold it to a group of NZ investors who rode it into the ground through bad management and unethical dealings (more self promotion: read my book when it's released for all the gory details).

No, not genius but it does kind of prove my point that I do know online media and the marketplace in which it operates. I'm a digital media person who isn't shackled by preconceptions and beliefs born of an earlier era.

Since then I've been involved in a number of other ventures, some public, some not and I'm expecting to make a few quite significant announcements relating to at least two of those activities shortly.

I don't choose to drive around in a big expensive car -- I have other priorities.

Likewise, I don't see earning large sums of money as the sole metric for measuring my success -- although I fully expect to be earning a very healthy income within 12 months from now.

All I'm saying is that NBR is perfectly positioned to take some bold steps and actually turn their current success into some very strong revenue streams by exploiting brand new and innovative models. They *could* become a shining example of how to really exploit the digital medium using news as their currency to create profit.

As I've stated, I'd be happy to be a catalyst for such a transition because it's exciting stuff and there's such huge potential -- but nobody's holding a gun to anyone's head. I won't get my nose out of joint if nobody's interested.

If NBR want to live (and die) by clutching at the past like so many other mainstream publishers, that's their call.

Once I've got some of my current projects off my plate I will definitely implement my ideas alone if needs be.

No disrespect Barry, but perhaps like you, the NBR is passed its use-by-date? I use to be a weekly subscriber, then as the quality of the stories tapered off, I only brought the occassional copy from the corner dairy or, bookshop. I've been a daily online reader since day-one, but forget the pay-for-view model, it simply will not work and I ain't coming back. I also consider your comments regarding blog sites as arrogant and nieve, and really only underscores how out of touch you are with the real world. Thanks for the ride Barry, its been nice knowing you. NBR...RIP.

Barry

Here's a few ideas on how it could be done.

http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/07/17/opinion-how-to-...

cheers
Bernard

I don't the answer and if I did I would be rich. However, I do know this path is heading towards failure

I'm sorry, but the tone of this 'article' is quite poor and flippant, and while I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt two things stopped me: calling Rupert Murdoch a 'legendary publisher' is only relevant if you mean he's good at ruining things (the Times has never been the same since he took ownership, Fox News is a joke, and Sky News isn't much better, no matter where you go). Secondly, the argument that us 'time-poor business' people will have access to more information, which is already available for free (or paid for through advertising time) is a logical contradiction. I already pay to read the paper version of NBR, with the website being more of an immediate update. Given that this site has become, recently, flooded with low-quality NZPA articles, which often are written no better than press releases, makes me wonder if any real journalism will be provided beyond what already goes into the paper edition. If that is the case, I don't mind waiting a few days extra to read a thorough article or catching brief snips on another site (much as that might dismay my sense of loyalty). So this appears to be dragging the NBR through the mud, creating ill-will, and for what real improvement in revenue?

I find it fascinating to see what is a very current debate outside NZ now being played out here.

Steve Brill recently spoke about this issue and indeed has suggested a model where a %, I think 10%, is behind a paywall for a period. http://bit.ly/3KXq5u

My concern is whether NBR can offer sufficient richness of content behind the paywall at an attractive price to make it worthwhile.

I have to agree with most comments. I am a time poor business man, but I get over 50 individual RSS feeds on my Blackberry, and i wouldnt consider paying for any of it, as I am yet to see any exclusives on any of the feeds.
I think trying to get more users on the mobile site with the increase of netbooks, would be a start, not reducing the number through introducing a paid service

Er, Barry...the only people who have made a success out of online subscriptions are a few music sites and the pron industry. Just how big a change are you making?

Dear Barry,
I think it's the mix of publishing models that's the problem:
1) NBR print model - limited circulation but high readership per copy, high multiple-reference figures, high socio-economic figures, and highly-targeted business sector audiences. To offset this, the cover price is a reasonably substantial revenue stream (unlike dailies where it doesn't even cover the paper and ink).
2) NBR on-line - lots of clicks but none of the above in provable form. In the absence of proof, hard-nosed advertisers opt for volume. Most online publishers oblige - to hell with the quality, feel the width. . .
Some years ago a UK media researcher came up with a graph - socio-economic and other targeting factors in the vertical axis, circulation on the horizontal axis. All the current titles were in a band from The Times at top-left to the News of the World at bottom-right. The lesson was what lay below that band - all the papers which had folded over the last half-century, achieving neither targeted audience nor outright circulation.
Good luck to you with your pay-for-content model. It may help restore NZ's flagging standards of journalism and dwindling newsroom numbers.
More importantly, it may realign NBR's on-line audience with its print readership and justify targeted online advertising. You'll just need to invest in research to prove the shift in online audience demographics.

I would like to add a few well-intended comments. First, I cancelled my subscription to NBR many years ago because I felt it's stories lacked professionalism and sought sensationalism and in some cases were personal. The NBR naming the policeman at the centre of the Waitara shooting and then your vicious and persistent personal attacks on Donna Hall were the last straw (even though I have no time for her at all they attacks were unfair). If you had stuck to serious in-depth business stories as was once the case I would have continued to buy your information service.

Second point, I think you are wrong to say that free content does not work. Barry... you made it work when you published the Property Press freebies many years ago, and the community newspapers today still use that model. Their content attracts readers which attracts advertisers - that's the freebie formula.

Third point. I like others, will now migrant to reading online content elsewhere as it is irritating to be told that articles are subscriber only. You actually don't have unique content (or enough of it that is valuable) to justify the subscription.

Maybe NBR's organisational culture needs to focus back on being the very best provider of financial information.