In the last hour I checked the size of the front page of six news web sites using http://analyze.websiteoptimization.com. Here are the results:

• Fairfax’s Stuff – 1.7MB
• The New Zealand Herald – 450Kb
• The Sydney Morning Herald – 940Kb
• The Australian – 874Kb
• Radio New Zealand News – 88Kb
• ABC News Radio – 294Kb

So you can read the Radio New Zealand News page 200 times and still download less data than a single read of Stuff.

While these numbers may not be important if you’ve got a nifty broadband link and an unlimited download plan, they make a huge difference when you are on the end of a slow link or paying through the nose for each megabyte of data.

None of the sites attempted to show one of those awful TV style advertisements during this test. I hate to think what they might add to the totals.

Update: The National Business Review weighs in at 398Kb.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Kindle: Fairfax, News Corp say no (billbennett.co.nz)
• News.com.au: Fairfax ‘open’ to paid content talks with its rival (blogs.journalism.co.uk)
• New Zealand media people on Twitter (billbennettnz.wordpress.com)

Today The Australian’s Media section ran Readers not averse to paying for online content by Nick Tabakoff. As the headline suggests the story looks at an international study by PricewaterhouseCoopers which found ‘readers could be willing to pay almost as much for some high-quality online newspapers as they do for print versions, particularly in specialist news areas’.

Could this be related to the PricewaterhouseCoopers study referred to by Miriam Steffens in The Sydney Morning Herald’s Readers reluctant to pay for online news?

Indeed it is.

Now, strictly speaking there’s a fairly thin semantic line between ‘readers being reluctant to pay’ and ‘readers not adverse to paying for’. One does not directly contradict the other. But the two headlines are clearly two different interpretations of the same data.

Or as we say in the media, they each have a different spin.

Which one is more plausible?

Both Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, the owner of The Australian and Fairfax Media, owner of the SMH have a vested interest in the story.

Murdoch has gone on the record in recent days saying he wants to charge readers for online content on News Corporation web sites. The headline on Nick Tabakoff’s story squares nicely with Murdoch’s recent statements on the issue. We all know Murdoch interferes editorially in his papers. While it’s extremely unlikely he had a hand in this particularly story, it does reflect the official line now coming from News Corporation.

Fairfax is more complicated. The company’s The Australian Financial Review operates behind a content pay wall. It costs around $3 a pop to view an AFR story, though most paying customers have all-you-can-eat subscriptions. On the other hand the SMH, The Age and the company’s other online properties including New Zealand’s stuff.co.nz are all free to readers and make money from online advertising.

Now which story looks the most plausible?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Fairfax to follow Murdoch’s lead and charge for online news (billbennett.co.nz)
• Crunching newpaper online paywall numbers (billbennett.co.nz)

A short story by Jennifer Foreshew in today’s Australian IT reports there’s a shortage of business intelligence professionals in Australia. In BI skills shortage persists she quotes Gartner analyst Ian Bertram saying the shortage could lead to flawed projects.

For more information read BI skills shortage persists | Australian IT.

Rupert Murdoch’s The Australian has a Media section which is often a cracking read for those of us who work in and around newspaper and magazine publishing. The newspaper’s media pages don’t shirk from running stories that debunk common myths (often self-perpetuated myths) about the internal workings of the media and the challenges the industry faces.

A good example is The winter of journalism’s content which points out that online publishing, which is widely expected to supplant newspapers and magazines, will only go so far in replacing them and leave a gaping hole. This has huge implications and is something I’ve worried about for some time now.

The economics of online publishing mean there simply isn’t enough money to pay for the in-depth news investigations and searching features on politics, crime and other social issues that are so important to modern democracies.

As we all know, advertisers are bailing out of print publications. They are drawn to the web because they see it as a more cost-effective and accountable medium (that’s a disputable assumption we’ll leave for another day).

In particular, online advertisers like to place their messages next to niche interest stories to more closely target interested readers. For example car makers prefer to buy banner ads on pages featuring lightweight stories about driving.

Even if a publisher could find the money to produce hard news stories, advertisers wouldn’t want them. The obvious answer is to publish fewer hard news stories and more of the marketable lightweight fluff. However, it’s traditionally been those difficult, hard news stories that have sold printed newspapers that dragged in readers in the first place.

But this vicious economic cycle is nothing compared to what can happen in a society that no longer has a viable mechanism for scrutinising governments and out-of-control corporations.