Alan Jones (Image: AAP/Warren Clarke)

This is the way Alan Jones’ career in traditional media ends — not with a bang but with a Facebook post.

On Thursday, the former titan of commercial radio said he’d turned down a new contract with Sky News which would have seen him in a much reduced role. The offer was about as close as you can get to saying “we don’t need your services any more” while still technically employing them.

In traditional fashion Jones was defiant. The broadcaster wrote a 1500-word screed — quoting Crikey reporting at length — arguing that far from being irrelevant he was resonating more than ever.

He cited a number of social media and digital metrics showing “the total who go to Alan Jones opinion area [on the Sky News website] is, pleasingly, greater than that aggregate of all other Sky News hosts”. In other words, the old guy’s still got it.

So if Jones is such a traffic magnet, why does News Corp want to ditch him? The downsides are obvious and well covered: he is expensive; he’s a threat to advertising revenue; he’s earned the ire of regulators and, crucially for a company that depends on a handful of tech companies to allow it to distribute content, platforms. It takes only a few offhand comments from a roguish Jones to potentially get it booted off something like YouTube (although the chances of that seem slim given News Corp’s plum deals with Google). 

Considering all these, Sky News Australia may consider that Jones is replaceable. It’s hard to tell from the outside but what limited evidence there is suggests this might be true. Despite Jones’ personal Facebook reach and interest in his columns, his videos — Sky News’ bread and butter — aren’t as dominant as Jones might have you believe.

There’s no Jones-related video in the top 10 Sky News Australia Facebook posts in the past month. Just one of its top 10 most viewed YouTube videos ever is from Jones. He failed to replicate his radio success with terrestrial television ratings. Even with YouTube revenue streaming in, television advertising and subscription fees still pay the bills.

Which brings us to what Jones could do next.

Discounting the idea that he could put his money where his mouth is and go into politics, he could continue in the media business by going fully digital. Many issues that trouble a traditional media company — even one that’s embraced digital — don’t necessarily apply to an individual media personality (or “creators” as we call them in typical internet parlance). And in a time when any person can distribute content like a media company with little overhead, there’s less need for creators to stay with legacy media.

Jones could easily pivot his 130,000 Facebook followers to some kind of digital media platform. A podcast comes to mind, following in the footsteps of Hamish and Andy who directly transferred their radio relevance to podcast dominance. Or he could continue to do filmed interviews and monologues on YouTube and Facebook. He could even do the trendy move in digital media and pivot to Substack, a popular newsletter platform. Maybe he should try getting ahead of the game and immerse himself in Facebook’s metaverse, whatever that ends up being? 

The benefit of going indie is that there are no advertisers or company executives to answer to. As long as he toes the very generous line policed by tech platforms, he can dog-whistle or share climate misinformation to his heart’s content. And without a traditional middle man, Jones’ transition could be quite lucrative. 

If it’s correct to say that Jones’ run in traditional media outlets is over, his profile and engaged audience make a digital transition eminently possible. The question is: is the 80-year-old ready to go solo?  

Is Alan Jones a spent force? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name if you would like to be considered for publication in Crikey’s Your Say column. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.