AFR Site Rebuilt...AGAIN

I noticed this article in the Oz Media section today:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/fairfax-tries-yet-again-with-afr-site-revamp/story-e6frg996-1225801820958

This in my mind is very simple - the AFR has over the last 5 years made a complete mess of its Web strategy. They have ideal content for the Web, a great brand name, and are in a data-hungry market.
In that time, their 'subscription' strategy has been an epic failure on two important counts:
1) Their numbers have been very low (under 5,000 apparently)
2) Even those that subscribe to the paper version of the AFR don't access the Web content simply because it wasn't easy to access or search, and in fact, for a while there, it was almost unusable.
There are two groups that any advertiser (and media agency, publisher, TV Network, Radio Network etc.) would like to get their hands on:
1) Men 18-35 (and in my business, getting them to respond to anything)
2) The mythical 'business decision-makers', CEOs, ABs etc.
The AFR has the second group in spades, but I would suggest, just based on anecdotal evidence, that they are pretty pissed off with the AFR, and its constantly changing online model...I know that agencies are - it's very hard to buy effectively on the AFR site.

The one constant in all of this? The head of AFR, Michael Gill, who is now blaming technology on the need to revamp yet again - whatever else Michael is, he is a great survivor.
I know some guys who were made redundant at Fairfax recently - one in particular was a senior media sales guy who did a great job, kept clients happy, and was a thorough professional (and a nice guy), and yet he got punted from his (I am guessing here) 150k a year job, yet Mr Gill, who I'm sure is getting paid a little more than that, somehow survives...all I can say is, good luck to him.

m