Login / Join
Immigration Daily News Immigration news behind a paywall? Check here before you purchase a subscription!Australian Immigration Daily News
Breaking Australian immigration news brought to you by Migration Alliance and associated bloggers. Please email help@migrationalliance.com.au
- Font size: Larger Smaller
- Hits: 3663
- 26 Comments
Immigration news behind a paywall? Check here before you purchase a subscription!
Migration Alliance members should check this blog first before paying for news which sits behind a paywall.
A paywall is an arrangement whereby access is restricted to users who have paid to subscribe to the news.
Migration Alliance gets its news directly from inside Parliament House in Canberra as and when new legislation is released. Migration Alliance also subscribes to a media monitoring service.
Before you go and pay for a subscription to immigration news articles please consider the following things:
1. Any breaking news that is of any real relevance to migration agents in their daily practice will be put up here on this website
2. Just because an email subject heading looks important or is breaking news, does not mean it is. If it is not on here, and it is not on the MIA newsfeed then it is just 'thought pieces' dressed up as breaking news.
3. Just because someone says their news is the "first" or the "leading" does not make it so. It is very easy to be the "first" and "leading" news on personal thought pieces, mainly because no other organisation wants to do this.
4. Check the news you are reading and don't simply take it for granted that the writer is correct. Cross-check all news that is released. This includes news on this website and also authors on this website. Whilst they have have their own opinions, sometimes that is all the news is: An opinion.
5. Save yourselves money and look the news up yourself after reading the main subject lines. Most of the news you will be able to get for free online or sources that don't cost a cent.
Comments
-
Wednesday, 30 October 2019It looks like the SS Paywall has asked all his friends and family to rate this article poorly. Look at how quickly the stars have gone to 12 votes at low star rating overnight. Only people with an active interest in getting paid for public news would be that motivated that quickly!
-
Wednesday, 30 October 2019
Are you referring to a certain individual who messed around on an FB group, gathered all the emails from members promising info for free and now is asking for money?
-
Wednesday, 30 October 2019
I think Migration Alliance is referring to stealth operation SS Ambition.
I don't know about messing around on a Facebook Group, or gathering all the emails from members, but I do know that giving RMAs bait in newsletters and then a link to a website where the news is located, and then not giving them access to that news until they pay a fee is a little bit much, mainly because the news is available on the web! Even Migration Alliance and the MIA are not releasing news which is not available within the profession. NOTHING sitting behind a paywall is worth paying for IMHO.
Most of it is a very lousy attempt at tarting up readily available news on the web, or legislative updates, instruments etc. Nothing special. -
Wednesday, 30 October 2019
For what it's worth, most of the MIA's news is now behind a paywall - they want to limit that news to members, and I see nothing wrong with that. You get a hint at what's in the story, then you get to pay to read the whole story. It's a standard practice at professional publications such as LexisNexis, etc where the staff are spending valuable time and effort gathering news and including perspective.
The SS operation now seems to focus mostly on case law reviews where the important points are summarised from what can be 50+ page decisions - if people don't want to pay for that and instead want to spend time reading and searching through those decisions or spend hundreds of dollars per month for a legal citation/indexing subscription to LN or another commercial provider, that's great! But for me, I'd much rather pay a bit and let someone else spend the hours slogging through many cases a week and identifying the ones that actually create new precedents. That sort of research, done properly, is certainly of value and we see it in other areas of law such as law journals and commercial case research software and newsletters (for instance, the Family Law Handbook publishes - for a cost - a monthly roundup of important family law cases to save practitioners the time of slogging through every case trying to find the important ones).
There's a very big difference between charging for "news" that VETASSESS is closing down for 2 days or some other obvious, public info (I don't think SS or anyone else is charging for that basic, obvious, public info), vs finding a case that could make a huge difference in submissions you're writing that are due tomorrow (!).
Different people will prefer different types of news services, especially depending on what they're looking for, how much research time/staff they have to do legal research, etc. To say nothing behind a paywall is "worth it" dismisses the entirety of the MIA's excellent news effort not to mention SS, LexisNexis, and many others. Depending on freebie "cut & paste" from press releases etc where important context and perspective is often missing may not be the best in all cases for all practitioners.
Sometimes, and I do mean sometimes, "you get what you pay for"... -
Wednesday, 30 October 2019
Well said Mark N. The SS information is well researched and I think great value.
-
Thursday, 31 October 2019
It’s not that well researched! That must be you SS! Don’t you work closely with Mark? If you call regurgitating news which is already out there, and dressing it up with some obvious opinion “well researched” then you must be .... SS.
Also by the way what about Michael Arch? Doesn’t he do news behind a pay wall? Well at least he’s an experienced migration lawyer who runs cases in the courts. His articles are actually decent. Probably worth reading to be honest.
EB -
Thursday, 31 October 2019
Good morning, EB! Michael Arch is a friend and I subscribe to his service as well - in this business, the more news/perspectives you can get, the better, in my view. I have no idea why this article, attacking a particular person and his service, is necessary, but I'm happy to defend anyone whose services I believe are of value.
Like it or not, paywalls are the way that people or organisations who spend a lot of time gathering and writing about news tend to be able to survive financially. You tell them a bit about a story, then they can pay if they want to know all the details. Come to think about it, that's the business model of most RMAs (at least the for-profit ones) - you might tell a client a bit about a visa in an introductory call, but for you to share with them the complete information you know about the visa, they get to pay - for a consultation, or for your professional services to prepare. We are all knowledge brokers in one way or another. -
Monday, 04 November 2019
The SS paywall is mainly public news wrapped up in op-ed bait. But no one is forcing anyone to subscribe. Don't like it? Just bin it!
-
Tuesday, 05 November 2019
Some of the news is indeed public (ie, Working holiday visa changes, etc) however the majority of it is case law analysis that includes original commentary and perspective on how the case may apply to applicants, etc. But as you said, if you don't like it, ignore it. No need to launch a public attack against it - what's to gain? We all charge for our knowledge - it's the nature of our business.
-
Tuesday, 05 November 2019
Mark with all due respect I don’t see “the writer”’s name on any federal or high court wins. Also it’s not about what’s to gain. It’s about what’s to be lost. The answer is money.
The commentary is not all that original and it comes without experience at running actual cases which lead to precedents being set. What we dealing with here is someone trying to dress up basic news, hold back details of basic news behind a paywall, and dress if it up as if it’s not available elsewhere. If people want commentary they will ask the experts with a track record of success (with real clients). Why do you care so much? Is it because you are running a business with SS or something? You seem awfully invested in this conversation to be an innocent bystander. Don’t you care about agents wasting their money? Or can’t you see any other perspective because you are in bed with SS?
Who on earth wants to pay for emails which begin with titles such as “work and holiday visa to another country” when all over the web it says Thailand? Why hold the country back?
Agents aren’t dumb!
From
Electric Boogaloo
Melbourne, Victoria -
Wednesday, 06 November 2019
EB, with all due respect, come out from behind the alias and I'm happy to debate the merits of SS with you. I don't debate fake names and aliases. And I assume your criticism is equally aimed at the MIA since they also charge for news behind a paywall, with even more basic news stories than SS (and no original case law review)? As is well known, I have done collaborative projects with SS.
Not sure what your motivation is for attacking SS, MIA and other paywall news and case law services - perhaps if your real name was known it might be more apparent why the attacks. Obviously if the ONLY news that SS published were basic news than the arguments for paid vis non-paid would be different, but basic news is only a small part of what I read in SS's service.
Jeesh, since when did the MA become a platform for anonymous attacks on RMAs? -
Wednesday, 06 November 2019
Actually MIA is better than SS. You get what you pay for. Brownwyn Markie is very good at the news.
By the way having a negative opinion about someone's news service is not attacking their capacity as an RMA. It is providing feedback about a business service to the migration profession which in my view is sub-standard and lacking in value. If you want to call that an 'attack' then in my view, you are over-reaching. Negative feedback is not an 'attack'.
Michael Arch's news is actually good as he has runs on the board in serious court matters. He is experienced both in age and number of years as a lawyer. He has life experience. I pay for his stuff. I am positive about MIA and Michael Arch. Neither of these services are run by MA. I believe the SS news is a waste of money. I am entitled to that view. Just as you are entitled to be SS's apologist. -
Wednesday, 06 November 2019
OH MY GOD MARK
1. You don't speak for other people and what they would or would not tolerate in their facebook groups. From what I have seen SS has been thrown out of at least one of them so its not like he has clean conduct in there! Oh, what to aspire to
2. Migration Pro is Sergio's facebook group isn't it? Or is it yours and Sergio's? If so good on you but declare it openly in the same sentence as your comments.
3. Aren't you in business with Sergio for some kind of Migration Training?
4. Your comments are coated in bias and self-interest. You cannot remove the fact you are so closely associated with 'the writer' aka SS that you are blind to your own perspective.
5. Money actually counts and it is hard for agents to make ends meet. When news is sent out with grabbing headlines, removing important information, it preys on those in the profession who want to know what it is. I support Migration Alliance for having the nerve to state the bleeding obvious and point agents to the direction of free news.
6. Maybe SS's other news is decent, who knows? What I do know it is it not vital news for my everyday business. If I need vital news and information I will go to the MIA or on here or go and do some CPD and learn about it. -
Wednesday, 06 November 2019
Hi Harvinder,
I was quoting publicly available rules for those FB groups - no anonymous posts allowed. No personal attacks allowed. Far more professional than forums that allow nasty personal attacks from cowards hiding behind fake names who are probably not even RMAs.
Yes, I have done various projects with Sergio and he has taught for our CPD operation, that's all well known in the industry. I am also a supporter of his Migration Law Updates project. One does not exclude the other.
MIA does EXACTLY the same thing - send out news with headlines with details omitted, then gives the whole story if you pay for access behind their news paywall. It's very curious that people here seem to be beating up on Migration Law Updates, yet giving the MIA a pass for doing the very same thing. That's what shows this entire article and the anonymous negative attack comments are aimed exclusively at Sergio and Migraiton Law Updates.
I certinaly never claimed to be neutral on this subject, Harvinder. I have my opinion, and when a service or person I respect is attacked publicly, I'm happy to defend them. We are all free to choose what vendors we use or don't use. But publicly attacking someone and their business goes way, way beyond choosing a vendor. -
Thursday, 07 November 2019
All the FB groups have rules. But this is not a FB group is it?
Not being funny, but if anyone copied and pasted some of the RMA questions from inside those FB groups and published them online for the world to see, and OMARA to see, and clients to see, then heaps of RMAs would be struck off for a lack of sound knowledge.
For some reason you keep calling this a 'personal attack'. It is interesting to see that people are not allowed to have a negative opinion of a service to this profession without it being labeled an 'attack'. The terminology is a little severe.
There is a massive difference between the MIA and SS news. MIA is a membership organisation and delivers more than just news. Its news comes part of a total offering. THe latter is just plain news.
You have created the concept of an 'attack' which doesn't exist here, so as to create a (false) defence of SS news. What I see is that you love SS and would like to promote the SS news service. To me it almost seems like you might be getting some kind of a kick back if you are this interested in talking about it. -
Thursday, 07 November 2019
Hi Emma -
Actually there was an interesting thread on Joey Barnard's Support Network for RMAs FB group where she reported that OMARA had been sent a copy of a thread from that group (!).
I take your points, but there is a difference between having a negative opinion of something or someone's service, and publishing that opinion on the Internet in an allegedly professional forum read by a person's peers and clients potentially. Actually we can't really call this forum professional since it's open to the public and non-agents and anyone else can post - there's no effort made to qualify posters here (whereas most of the pro FB forums require a MARN to join), so there is no level of professional presence here, just incomplete names, or worse yet, fake names. It's virtually anonymous around here, unless a person includes their entire name, so there's no accountability for what is said, other than MA's responsibility as they decide whether to publish comments via moderation.
No kickbacks for me from SS! I am a fan of his (and others), but his news service is 100% his operation.
Re "attack", publishing derogatory information widely in a forum read by professionals certainly could be called an attack, especially as SS is not a public figure. Some posters here have even attacked Sergio personally - something I'm very surprised was approved by the MA, since the MA approves all comments here (all comments are moderated by MA). It was interested that a comment yesterday where an RMA said how they made $8k in businesss as a result of having SS's news ready during her consultation was not approved for posting, yet comments slagging SS and his service are. That poster used her real name, yet her comment was not allowed.... does that sound fair to you, Emma?
As I said, we all have our opinions, and certainly having an opinion is not an "attack". But having an opinion, and going on the attack by plastering that opinion in language that states it as a fact all over a forum read by professionals and sending it out to thousands of RMAs via email goes way beyind "just having an opinion". The same is true for an RMA. RMA A may think that RMA B (or their business, which as a personal service business tends to not be easily differentiated from the professional running it) is a negligent, incompetent RMA. Fine, that's his (or her) opinion. But if RMA A plasters that opinion all over professional forums available to RMA B's peers, clients, etc, that's an attack on the person and their professional reputation. And it's worse if the attack states conclusions as facts, not opinions.
I stand by my opinion of what has occurred here as an attack. I realise others may not agree - that's the great thing about opinions, we've all got them. But frankly with all the questionable service providers that pitch their wares to RMAs, it's interesting how on this forum SS was clearly and solely targeted with some highly negative allegations expressed in a news-like story as being factual. Would any one of us want to have our businesses attacked in that way online here? I doubt it. -
Friday, 08 November 2019
Looks like the industry's leading paywall is dividing opinion!
-
Friday, 08 November 2019
The industry's leading paywall is the MIA. They don't divide opinion. They have a complete offering. If you are talking about the SS paywall, it is NOT the leading paywall. Only SS himself would call it the leading paywall which is why I think that 'paywall sceptic' is in fact SS.
Also, Mark Northam on his own is hardly 'dividing' opinion. He is one person against a swell of opposing opinions and he is friends with SS. Not exactly dividing opinion. More like hes out on his own and the rest of us think that news behind a paywall in our profession (news service only) is a little bit much. Its not like it is a migration agent service. Its just not. This doesn't even fall under the Code. -
Monday, 11 November 2019
SS and I had a minor falling out on this one. I was galled at his claim that his newsletter was the "leading newsletter in Australia" and I called him on it privately. This to me smacked of complete disrespect to the giants of our field. Peter Bollard has been publishing for years. I also felt galled by someone who has been an RMA for less than 6 years pontificating from on high as if they had decades of experience, and leading others into believing that he had the experience to back up his personal thoughts. Remember this is NOT legal advice. Just opinion.
Then I sat back and contemplated it for a while, and this thread reinforced it.
Are politicians the best we have to offer? No, they get out there and put themselves on the line for ridicule and hate. They make outrageous claims they can't back up and we vote them in. Sergio has a busy practice. he is putting in extra effort after hours to bring value to the market.
I see people taking potshots at Mark. We all know Mark and SS are mates, and I respect Mark. He does good work. Like Prince, Levingston, Hourigan, Ford et al they are all worthy of respect. I'd prefer people played the ball than the person.
If you don't like SS's paywall don't spend the money - whether you consider his pontifications are worth the money is a call only you can make.
At least he is attempting to add value and I give him credit for that. Do I dislike his puffery? Is it the leading newsletter? I have my views.
Is he trying hard? Absolutely.
Don't kick the man for trying! We all have families to feed.
PS as for the whole paywall thing I agree with the MIA. Others were just cut and pasting their announcements and putting them out as "news". You want to know what MIA is saying pay the measly $500 and join. If you afford to pay for SS's paywall you can pay for accurate advice from a peak body.
Immigration blog
You mean like the SS Paywall?