Speaker 1: From The Australian. Here's what's on the front. I'm Claire Harvey.
Speaker 1: It's Monday, March twenty three, twenty twenty six. The countdown
Speaker 1: is on for the giant clash between One Nation and
Speaker 1: the Federal Coalition. After the weekend's huge result for Paul
Speaker 1: En Hanson's party in the South Australian election, Labor Premier
Speaker 1: Peter malnawskis one easily, but One Nation got a whopping
Speaker 1: primary vote and now all eyes are on the federal
Speaker 1: by election for the seat of Farah on May three.
Speaker 1: Britain is backing Australia's hardline on copyright protections for artists, authors,
Speaker 1: musicians and journalists against AI companies who want to hoover
Speaker 1: up creative works without paying. That story's live now in
Speaker 1: The Australian's Media section, and so is Steve Jackson's Unmissible
Speaker 1: Weekly Onslaught of Yarns in the Diary are weekly media
Speaker 1: gossip column. This week, the star of television's most excruciating
Speaker 1: viral moment is taking on her network, and Kyle and
Speaker 1: Jackie O are teaming up in the most surprising way.
Speaker 1: Jacko's here in just a moment. Steve Jackson is The
Speaker 1: Australian's Media Diary editor and JACKO. Today, you're writing about
Speaker 1: someone who is famous in New South Wales for being
Speaker 1: Channel nine Sydney weather presenter Ambas Sherlock. She's famous throughout
Speaker 1: the rest of the galaxy for being at the center
Speaker 1: of jacket Gate. What was jacket gate all about?
Speaker 2: Look, Claire, before we get into it, I'd just like
Speaker 2: to thank you for wearing something different to meet it.
Speaker 2: I'm disappointed in what I wear myself.
Speaker 1: I told you two hours ago. We know a'm by room.
Speaker 3: This is not I'm sorry, I've been flat out wardrobe.
Speaker 2: This is exactly what what Jackie Gate was about. Three
Speaker 2: people turned up to do precursor toil podcast, a little
Speaker 2: bit of a chinwag about the issues of the day
Speaker 2: on nine in their afternoon news bulletin, and unfortunately they
Speaker 2: all turned up wearing white jackets, and but Sherlock let
Speaker 2: one of the reporters. Then nine News reported julie'snook no
Speaker 2: uncertain terms that she should change not be wearing a
Speaker 2: white jacket. Julie took umbrage to this suggestion, and the
Speaker 2: withering stairs from both of them. I think even made
Speaker 2: people who were not in the industry. Blush. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Julie was doing a lot of like big eyes, like
Speaker 1: what's going on here? I don't understand, And Amber was
Speaker 1: doing a lot of like, honey, this is not my
Speaker 1: first radio you got it tapping a pen and she
Speaker 1: was furious, and the point that she made was kind
Speaker 1: of right. I actually thought Amber Sherlock was right in
Speaker 1: that moment. Her delivery might not have been good, but
Speaker 1: you know they did look like they were in a
Speaker 1: chemist warehouse infomercial.
Speaker 2: Well yeah, and I'll tell you what, Like, she was
Speaker 2: right whether or not you have to be worn to
Speaker 2: wear different clothes. It's one of those things when you
Speaker 2: go out on a television shoot you got to tell
Speaker 2: the talent block colors, no patterns that will disrupt the camera,
Speaker 2: no piercings or visible tattoos. But when you're a reporter,
Speaker 2: you know those rules yourself, so you should turn up
Speaker 2: presentable and she should have also clocked it. But it's funny,
Speaker 2: within moments I was at nine at that time, working
Speaker 2: at sixty minutes, and within moments of that happening, it
Speaker 2: just went around the station like wildfire. Everyone's pulling it
Speaker 2: up on the system. Unfortunately, one person pulled it up
Speaker 2: on that system. It was too good to keep within nine,
Speaker 2: and next thing you know, it was out to every network,
Speaker 2: and then it was out to all and sundry and
Speaker 2: they became famous.
Speaker 1: Now now Amber Sherlock has left nine to spend a
Speaker 1: lot more time with her family, probably more than she
Speaker 1: wants to be spending. She was sacked. She was made
Speaker 1: redundant by nine earlier this year, shortly after she celebrated
Speaker 1: her fiftieth birthday, and surprisingly or maybe not, given her
Speaker 1: conduct in jacket Gate, she's not taking it quietly.
Speaker 2: Well, there's a few weaering glances going at the moment
Speaker 2: as well.
Speaker 1: On Nne's going, what, I don't know what you're talking about.
Speaker 2: There, they're surprised. And the thing is, she's come out
Speaker 2: and she's spoken about she's saying that she thinks that
Speaker 2: her age was a key factor in it. They're already
Speaker 2: saying we are not ages. That is completely untrue. And
Speaker 2: I got to say I agree with him.
Speaker 1: Well, this is the network though, that you know in
Speaker 1: our working lives. Jacko So in the past couple of
Speaker 1: decades has been hiring women for their effability. Well, I'm
Speaker 1: not being shy about it.
Speaker 2: Yeah right, that's the famous John Westercock quote. And I
Speaker 2: think anyone who worked with John Westercott and I spent
Speaker 2: two weeks of work experience under him, knows full worll
Speaker 2: that that is how he spoke. I actually did do
Speaker 2: the numbers last year, and it might have changed, but
Speaker 2: I added up the ages of the thirty most prominent
Speaker 2: women in commercial media across seven nine and ten and
Speaker 2: the thirty most prominent males on air at seven nine
Speaker 2: and ten, and the women came out marginally older on
Speaker 2: average than the blokes.
Speaker 1: There's a massive audience out there who wants to hear
Speaker 1: women's opinions and that's been the secret of the success
Speaker 1: of ten Looks three. This is the podcast hosted by
Speaker 1: Annabel Crab and Lee Sales, two of the smartest and
Speaker 1: dare I say over fifty women in Australian media. Well, hello, missy, Hi,
Speaker 1: I have been watching something.
Speaker 2: They started this podcast twelve years ago and back then
Speaker 2: it was like, this little site doesn't know what's a podcast?
Speaker 2: What are you talking about? How do I get one
Speaker 2: of those?
Speaker 3: Have?
Speaker 2: I got to download an app? And they've been along
Speaker 2: to the whole ride and they've seen it evolved. So
Speaker 2: when we see people like Jackie o Henderson and her
Speaker 2: agent Slash would be co presented Gemmer O'Neil trying to
Speaker 2: do the same thing on couches, cuddled up with pillows
Speaker 2: talking about what they're reading, they're all mimicking a very
Speaker 2: successful formula that Annabel Krab and Lee Sales sort of
Speaker 2: pioneered in that space in at least Australia.
Speaker 1: And they certainly did. And they bring huge smarts, They're
Speaker 1: very relatable, they're very warm, They genuinely are really.
Speaker 2: Good friends and funny.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And the challenge though, which they're facing, as everyone
Speaker 1: in audio, I think is, is monetization. We're seeing a
Speaker 1: huge contraction in audio now where either podcast creators are
Speaker 1: creating a premium stream where you have to pay to
Speaker 1: subscribe for certain episodes, or you have to go and
Speaker 1: see them live to help support their podcast being free.
Speaker 1: That's certainly been the case with the world's most successful podcast, Chatters.
Speaker 3: Hello, if you are a regular listener of this podcast,
Speaker 3: we would so appreciate it if you would consider subscribing
Speaker 3: to us to help us meet the costs of production
Speaker 3: and social media and all the other things that go
Speaker 3: into putting it together.
Speaker 1: If you go to our web now, Annabella Lee are
Speaker 1: saying the same thing, although that's still not going to
Speaker 1: be enough. Yeah, what's the solution.
Speaker 2: Well, they're already doing the live shows, as you know.
Speaker 2: They're also have pre roll ads in all their programs
Speaker 2: that they're putting out more podcasts, they're doing one a week,
Speaker 2: and they're selling like everyone else merch and I'm still
Speaker 2: waiting to get my merch from the front. Hopefully that's
Speaker 2: coming soon.
Speaker 1: But thanks to an apron, I'm like, at you win
Speaker 1: you jumper.
Speaker 2: Actually I could deal with one as long as it's
Speaker 2: not a white jacket. But I don't know what the
Speaker 2: solution is, and telling ly, they don't know what it is.
Speaker 2: I mean, you obviously listen to a lot more podcasts
Speaker 2: than me, but it seems everyone's doing the same things.
Speaker 2: So by virtue, you know, where is the money to
Speaker 2: be made.
Speaker 1: I think audiences have to get used to the idea
Speaker 1: that if you like something and value it, just like television,
Speaker 1: you are now going to have to pay because the
Speaker 1: old fashioned model of advertising support that doesn't work in
Speaker 1: the age of giant tech companies like Google and Facebook,
Speaker 1: which can undercut any publisher. So it doesn't matter whether
Speaker 1: you're an independent podcast publisher or a giant news organization.
Speaker 1: You cannot compete with Google and Facebook in terms of
Speaker 1: ad revenue, so ads don't work as a source of funding.
Speaker 1: That means you need subscriber revenue. You need people to
Speaker 1: pay to be part of the club. A lot of
Speaker 1: Australia's most popular podcasters have already done this. They're also
Speaker 1: turning them into videos. I mean, that is why podcasters
Speaker 1: are going to YouTube, because it's much easier to monetize,
Speaker 1: and YouTube will do the monetization for you. So yeah,
Speaker 1: it's a shame because there is something beautiful about the
Speaker 1: audio only conversation. There's a level of warmth and depth
Speaker 1: that I think you can get from listening to too
Speaker 1: smart people like Annabella and Lee talk while you're walking
Speaker 1: the dog or doing the dishes or reading a boring
Speaker 1: report at work.
Speaker 2: Well, clearly that's what a lot of people are doing,
Speaker 2: because I had a look today, so for their audio podcasts,
Speaker 2: one hundred thousand listeners almost every episode, and they're chadding
Speaker 2: away for an hour and forty minutes, sometimes sometimes only
Speaker 2: thirty three minutes. I suppose it depends on what tickles
Speaker 2: their fancy that week. But when you have a look
Speaker 2: at their YouTube audience, obviously a lot of people are
Speaker 2: rusted onto the old format because they'll have two thousand
Speaker 2: views or five hundred views, and their subscription base is
Speaker 2: really quite modest, it's three and a half thousand subscribers.
Speaker 1: There's a real gender thing here. I think some of
Speaker 1: the men who started out in podcasting have transitioned almost
Speaker 1: wholly to video. So Joe Rogan, for example, is a
Speaker 1: YouTube play. That's where Carl Stefanovic is going. I think
Speaker 1: it's something about the difference between the audiences. Men want
Speaker 1: to watch their conversation, women want to listen to it.
Speaker 1: And you know, without being a sexist, I think it's
Speaker 1: partly because women are busy. Women are driving to pick
Speaker 1: up kids, they're cooking, they're cleaning. Even when they're having
Speaker 1: their downtime, they're doing something. They're multitasking, whereas I think
Speaker 1: men spend a bit more time sitting on the sofar watching.
Speaker 2: YouTube derek, absorbing more information, getting really delving into the weeds.
Speaker 1: I know that sometimes you will use YouTube as a
Speaker 1: search engine, won't you you're interested in an issue. Let's
Speaker 1: say it's you know the horme was straight, and you'll
Speaker 1: search for that on YouTube and you want to watch
Speaker 1: an explainer about it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I know everyone ten five years ago were saying,
Speaker 2: let's make minute long explainers, but I have Look, I
Speaker 2: don't want to minute long explainer. That's not enough. I
Speaker 2: want ten minutes. I don't want half an hour. I
Speaker 2: want ten minutes. And you're right, I want to watch it.
Speaker 2: I want to see the maps. I want to get
Speaker 2: my head around. And maybe that's just a way different
Speaker 2: people absorb information. I need those visual cues, and I
Speaker 2: really enjoy being able to see what people are saying
Speaker 2: and their body language. But I mean, when you listen
Speaker 2: to Chat ten looks three, is that you're just listening
Speaker 2: to it.
Speaker 1: I would rather just listen to it because I find
Speaker 1: shows like that a companion to my life rather than
Speaker 1: being something I want to sit down and watch. I'm
Speaker 1: too busy watching below deck Sailing. You're jack, I don't
Speaker 1: have time to for watching Chat ten looks three.
Speaker 2: Well, the difference, I suppose is because we're in journalism,
Speaker 2: big advocates of paying for people's journalism. I know I
Speaker 2: have subscriptions to half a dozen websites. Even the ones
Speaker 2: I could get for free through work I pay for.
Speaker 2: I make a point of paying for them because you
Speaker 2: want to support people at other mastheads. So probably for you,
Speaker 2: happy to pay, But do you reckon? You know a
Speaker 2: lot of people go, oh, now that you're charging two bucks,
Speaker 2: I can get a clone copy of this podcast somewhere else.
Speaker 1: I really think if people value a product, they will pay.
Speaker 1: But just like Netflix, all the streaming services, HBO, they
Speaker 1: don't make it optional. It's like, if you want this,
Speaker 1: you're going to have to pay, And really is not
Speaker 1: that much eight dollars a month really for the streaming platforms,
Speaker 1: something similar for most news products. I imagine Annavilla and
Speaker 1: Lee could very easily charge that, and they might not
Speaker 1: be getting one hundred thousand downloads for those episodes. Maybe
Speaker 1: they'll get twenty thousand. But if each of those people
Speaker 1: are giving them eight dollars a month, that's a lot better.
Speaker 2: Well I'm just doing a maths on that. That's eight
Speaker 2: hundred thousand a month. They won't be on the ABC
Speaker 2: very long at those rates.
Speaker 1: Coming up, I try to start another fight with JACKO
Speaker 1: about our favorite topic, Kyle and Jackie O. Now I
Speaker 1: love fighting with you about Cole and Jackie O JACKO,
Speaker 1: and I'm hoping we can have a fight today. What's
Speaker 1: the latest with our favorite breakfast radio presenters who are
Speaker 1: know more?
Speaker 2: Right, I can tell you this for free. It's happened
Speaker 2: when you would. Kyle has filed his statement of claim
Speaker 2: in the federal court against his former employer An. He
Speaker 2: wants his money. He wants what he was promised, he
Speaker 2: wants what he says he is owed, and he's not
Speaker 2: going to settle for a cent less.
Speaker 1: That's one hundred million dollars the balance of what he
Speaker 1: wants to be paid out.
Speaker 2: One hundred million minus fourteen months work. And he says
Speaker 2: he wants a whole kind kaboodle. He's not interested in
Speaker 2: a quick little Hey what about twenty million and we
Speaker 2: call it quits. He wants everything, and I kind of
Speaker 2: think for mine, he's probably entitled to it, because a
Speaker 2: deal is a deal.
Speaker 1: This is going to turn on whether or not he
Speaker 1: was able and willing to deliver on the services they
Speaker 1: were paying him for. He would say, I was absolutely willing.
Speaker 1: I was absolutely able, But you didn't let me talk
Speaker 1: to Jackie to resolve this situation, right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he says it's like a catch twenty two, given
Speaker 2: no chance to resolve the issues. Says as we've all
Speaker 2: been saying, which we argued about last time, is that
Speaker 2: he's been doing the same content for twenty years, and
Speaker 2: no one at any point has ever said, hey man,
Speaker 2: we've changed the script. That's no longer cool. This character
Speaker 2: he's been playing, that is the character he leans into
Speaker 2: on air. And I know everyone's sort of intimating he's
Speaker 2: a much warmer, charismatic, caring guy off air than he
Speaker 2: is the character he plays on the show. But he's saying,
Speaker 2: I've done that, I've done what you asked, You've promoted
Speaker 2: as radio gorn rogue, I attract all the vitriol, I
Speaker 2: soak it up, and now you've said, not cool anymore?
Speaker 2: What gives?
Speaker 1: He's always known too, And I think this whenever I
Speaker 1: read someone writing about what a misogynist Kyle is. Yeah. Sure,
Speaker 1: he's behaved like an absolute buffoon on air, which is
Speaker 1: what they were paying him to do and which is
Speaker 1: what the audience tuned in for. But he's also the
Speaker 1: one who insisted that Jackie get paid the same amount
Speaker 1: as him. I haven't seen many other men in media
Speaker 1: do that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and if you listen to the show, a lot
Speaker 2: gets made of like, oh they did this crazy stunt
Speaker 2: and headlines about he said something stupid. The truth is
Speaker 2: they plan those things. They know, Hey, we're going to
Speaker 2: do this, and everyone's going to beat up on us,
Speaker 2: but it's going to be great because the rating survey
Speaker 2: and in radio it's still a survey. You fill in
Speaker 2: which shows, So you have this crazy stunt just as
Speaker 2: the survey goes and oh yeah, Kyle and Daki I
Speaker 2: did listen to so I know about that. So all
Speaker 2: these things are planned. They're not just being vile and
Speaker 2: careless and stupid just because you know he's an idiot.
Speaker 2: He's actually very intelligent. It's all planned, and it's what
Speaker 2: the whole show has been centered around and advertised on radio.
Speaker 1: Goes rogue And you're writing today that Jackie is going
Speaker 1: to stand back and wait to see what happens with
Speaker 1: Kyle's lawsuit before she foils her own. So actually, Kyle
Speaker 1: might be Australia's leading feminist here Jacko, he's paving the
Speaker 1: way for his female former co host to get her
Speaker 1: one hundred million dollars too.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, it's going to be interesting to see what
Speaker 2: she does there. Because her contract also torn up, she's
Speaker 2: missing out on the better part of one hundred million
Speaker 2: dollars paid over ten years as well. The difference is
Speaker 2: Aarn is going, all right, Kyle, we're going to just
Speaker 2: tell everyone you're reckless and that serious misconduct, because they
Speaker 2: know that'll play to a large portion of the community
Speaker 2: who already hate him and made it their mind, even
Speaker 2: though they're not his listeners. But for Jackie, they're going, hey,
Speaker 2: stick with House. We've got a show for you. You
Speaker 2: can one hundred million and ten years. No, no new deal.
Speaker 2: We've torn that one up, but we've got a new
Speaker 2: deal for you, not quite as lucrative, but you're welcome back.
Speaker 2: And she's not. My sources are saying she's not engaging
Speaker 2: with that so far. She's going to wait and see,
Speaker 2: quite cleverly, how much does Kyle get before I decide
Speaker 2: what I'm going to do.
Speaker 1: The bosses at a are in clearly thought they were
Speaker 1: geniuses for coming up with this idea of like, oh,
Speaker 1: I know, we could say that he hasn't fulfilled his
Speaker 1: contract and then we don't have to pay one hundred
Speaker 1: million dollars If this goes wrong for them. They are
Speaker 1: going to be paying one hundred million dollars plus legal costs,
Speaker 1: plus interest.
Speaker 2: Plus probably paying with their jobs, like this is a
Speaker 2: massive gamble for them. And there's a joke that goes,
Speaker 2: how do you make a small business investment make a
Speaker 2: large business investment in a media company? Right, So they
Speaker 2: know at this time they have to get rid of
Speaker 2: this contract. The new CEO's taking charge in January. Michael Stevenson,
Speaker 2: smart guy from my former sales boss there. He's coming
Speaker 2: in and goes, we've got to get rid of this.
Speaker 2: The whole market cap of AARN is only one hundred
Speaker 2: and one million dollars and we're paying these two guys
Speaker 2: like two hundred million. He's inherited this deal. He can't
Speaker 2: believe how bad it is. Unfortunately for him, both Kyle
Speaker 2: and Jackie O have signed this in good faith. And
Speaker 2: you know, if you make a deal, I'm sorry, it's
Speaker 2: very unfortunate that you're that you're stuck with this. But
Speaker 2: to at least what Kyle's saying, proactively plot to blow
Speaker 2: it up and call him unprofessional, which is what they've
Speaker 2: done by saying serious misconduct, He's just not going to
Speaker 2: copy it. Right, and I don't think he should.
Speaker 1: Well, maybe they could join Annabelle and Way on the
Speaker 1: couch and bringing you well up to chat ten look three.
Speaker 2: I'm telling you, if it's one dollar per subscriber a
Speaker 2: month eight hundred thousand, I'll be signing up to see
Speaker 2: if I can help cut some of their stories.
Speaker 1: Jacko, thank you very much, Thank you for having me on.
Speaker 1: Steve Jackson edits The Media Diary in the Australian. It's
Speaker 1: live now at the Australian dot com dot au