COLD JUSTICE: The Age hits another lost revenue iceberg on the way down

theagesinking Poor old Fairfax, they can’t take a trick. First it was recruitment advertising.  Then real estate.  Then cars.  Their once mighty rivers of gold have dried up faster than the Coorong in summer, and yet, every dark cloud has a silver lining for those optimistic Fairfax types.  As one of their now ex-corporate footsoldiers told VEXNEWS barely a year ago, “We’ve still got Law notices.  It’s not the biggest fish there is, but nothing in the newspaper business is more profitable.”

Alas, they should have kept their mouth shut.  The Age’s law notices business will evaporate before their eyes this year, and not just diminish, but fall away to zero.   Hilariously, the pole-axing hasn’t come about through the work of a competitor, or Fairfax’s incompetence, but from an altogether unexpected direction.  The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, as it turns out.  Oh, the irony.

An eagle-eyed follower of all things legal has sent us the following link to the Supreme Court’s website which went up in the first week of March.  It’s an extraordinary development which will have sent a chill down the spine of commercial types at The Age, who are getting ready to move into their new, 21st century shoebox, just two blocks away from the Supreme Court.  It seems the Supreme Court has decided to set up its own Law Notices publishing service.  Online. 

See the link below, where the Court recently advised that: 

“From 2 March 2009 until 1 September 2009, a dual advertising system for the publication of advertisements in Victoria will be in place. During this period, practitioners and court users can advertise on the Court’s website or by newspaper in the traditional way. From 2 September 2009 all advertisements, save and except those referred to below, must be advertised on this website.”

See more for yourself at this link. 

Here at VEXNEWS, this development has an odd look to it.  We understand that the process of placing probate notices – and other legal processes -  in the newspaper has been a obligation on law firms determined by the Courts themselves for more than a century.  Now we have the situation where lawyers still have to place a notice in a public place advising of the granting of probate, but instead of using a newspaper, law firms are compelled to advertise the granting of probate on the Court’s own website.  For $35 a pop. Cute.  A nice little earner for the Court we reckon, although not as nice an earner as law notices was for The Age.

By our estimates, Law Notices for The Age currently represents somewhere between $3 and 4 million per year in revenue with profitability upwards of the 50% mark.  We guess that’s not a lot when The Age’s revenues are still somewhere between $250 and $300 million per year, but, still a big hole in the bottom line when you’re talking about something so eye-wateringly profitable.

Ouch. We almost felt sorry for Fairfax when we heard about this development. 

But then we thought about Catherine Deveny, Lawrence Money, Suzanne Carbone and others like them, and it occurred to us that if this inexorable revenue slide keeps up, one day, people like this might actually have to find real jobs.

And it occurred to us that perhaps our Courts are wise, just and equitable after all.



Filed under Uncategorized

4 responses to “COLD JUSTICE: The Age hits another lost revenue iceberg on the way down

  1. Anonymous

    This action by the Supreme Court will disadvantage many people who do not have access to the internet. They will now be required to look online at the Supreme Court site rather than the public notices.

    The action will harm News Ltd as well as The Age. A lot of legal firms now place legal notices in the Herald Sun.

    Computers do break down too. If the Supreme Court site is not working how will people get this information?

    Personally I prefer the print media. Also legislation requires publication in some cases. Is the net proper publication?

  2. Jason

    Is the net proper publication?…

    yep. possibly even less ephemeral than inked paper.

    The greenies will love this

    How long ’til the print media dinosaur dies? I don’t give it 50 years

  3. Is the net proper publication?…

    yep. possibly even less ephemeral than inked paper.

    The greenies will love this

    How long ’til the print media dinosaur dies? I don’t give it 50 years
    Sorry, forgot to add great post! Can’t wait to see your next post!

  4. Walter Plinge

    “ and except…” What’s the difference between this pretentious construction and “except”? Still, when you’re a lawyer why use one word when several will do? Everyone will think you’re a brain.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s