Monday, March 9, 2009
City / Media Rumors (Updated)
Posted by Eli Sanders on Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 4:06 PM
Like I've been saying, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer newsroom is full of rumors (and uncomfortably short on facts) when it comes to the timing of its own demise. With that in mind, the latest from a reporter there:
FURIOUS rumors that our end is being delayed due to last minute interest in purchasing the paper.
I'm intrigued, and I'm of course looking into it, but I'm also going to repeat what I said below: as the end draws nearer, it's becoming increasingly hard to tell what's real and what's wishful thinking down there on Elliott Ave.
UPDATE: A different source at the P-I directed me to Chi-Dooh (Skip) Li, a "superlaywer" at Seattle's Ellis, Li & McKinstry who specializes in mergers and acquisitions, among other things. He's also a regular columnist for the P-I, and in his farewell column he discussed why "the death of the P-I in print would be a tragedy for this city and region."
I asked Li why his name is associated with rumors of a last-minute effort to purchase the newspaper from Hearst. His only publishable reply:
I can’t say a thing.
Share via
2
Here's a better rumor: Not only will the end be delayed, but everyone will get cake. The cake will be chocolate.
4
@3 The employees, families and friends of people who work at the PI care. With so little official information to go by, it's nice to hear SOMETHING from SOMEWHERE. Kindly scroll by if you don't want to hear about it.
5
word on the street is, A. Birch Steen is buying the P.I. with funding from some of his Bohemian Grove buddies...
9
As if nobody thought these rumors would pop up the second we found out that 49.5% of the ownership in the Times is all tapped out?
10
With its stellar investigative journalism, the P-I has been a responsible guardian of our democracy. And consider the decades of institutional domain knowledge, people like aerospace writer James Wallace & local watchdog Joel Connelly, among so many others, who we would lose.
Here's hoping something is in the works...
Here's hoping something is in the works...
11
Well, maybe it's not a lie. But you have to wonder if the buyer is tilting at windmills here. There's no way to make the P-I profitable unless you cut free of the JOA, lay off most of the workforce, and print only a few times a week. This business model doesn't work.
Unless... the buyer has a lot of cash. I mean, piles of it. To the point that they won't miss $14M a year. And they weren't after the newspaper, they were after the content. And they had a way to monetize the content.
Microsoft? I mean, this sounds insane, but if they could offer the content for free and monetize it with AdCenter, they would have the ultimate newspaper killer. They'd effectively kill any attempt for newspapers to charge for content because Microsoft's content would Always. Be. Free.
But that doesn't sound like a Ballmer idea. It sounds like an Ozzie idea, but he doesn't hold the purse strings. It's something Google would do -- and at this point, I'm pretty much expecting Google will start buying media companies the moment they start turning on Google News.
Amazon... I can't see how they'd swallow the cost, even with the huge pile of cash they have on-hand.
So that pretty much leaves whatever sugar daddies with a Don Quixote complex are still out there dreaming of owning a newspaper. And if it is... it won't work.
I'm making a note here: HUGE LACK OF SUCCESS.
Unless... the buyer has a lot of cash. I mean, piles of it. To the point that they won't miss $14M a year. And they weren't after the newspaper, they were after the content. And they had a way to monetize the content.
Microsoft? I mean, this sounds insane, but if they could offer the content for free and monetize it with AdCenter, they would have the ultimate newspaper killer. They'd effectively kill any attempt for newspapers to charge for content because Microsoft's content would Always. Be. Free.
But that doesn't sound like a Ballmer idea. It sounds like an Ozzie idea, but he doesn't hold the purse strings. It's something Google would do -- and at this point, I'm pretty much expecting Google will start buying media companies the moment they start turning on Google News.
Amazon... I can't see how they'd swallow the cost, even with the huge pile of cash they have on-hand.
So that pretty much leaves whatever sugar daddies with a Don Quixote complex are still out there dreaming of owning a newspaper. And if it is... it won't work.
I'm making a note here: HUGE LACK OF SUCCESS.
12
We should form the Seattle Timex Social Club to discuss these rumors:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRte0S2a_…
how do rumors get started?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRte0S2a_…
how do rumors get started?
14
Hmmm.
1. JOA - I agree with that.
2. Lay off most of the workforce - disagreed, since the P-I doesn't have many advertising and physical plant or distribution people (they're all Times technically).
3. Print only a few times a week - maybe, but nobody says you have to print a paper that is too big for the supporting ad revenue.
The primary problem with the business model is that we're in a recession right now. The secondary problem is that they refuse to do what the P-I used to do - sell half the front page for ads, put corner ads on the front of sections, and get rid of the overpriced sports coverage.
And they need to consider that most papers used to be tabloid rags or scandal sheets - nothing wrong with that model even today.
Well, maybe it's not a lie. But you have to wonder if the buyer is tilting at windmills here. There's no way to make the P-I profitable unless you cut free of the JOA, lay off most of the workforce, and print only a few times a week. This business model doesn't work.
Hmmm.
1. JOA - I agree with that.
2. Lay off most of the workforce - disagreed, since the P-I doesn't have many advertising and physical plant or distribution people (they're all Times technically).
3. Print only a few times a week - maybe, but nobody says you have to print a paper that is too big for the supporting ad revenue.
The primary problem with the business model is that we're in a recession right now. The secondary problem is that they refuse to do what the P-I used to do - sell half the front page for ads, put corner ads on the front of sections, and get rid of the overpriced sports coverage.
And they need to consider that most papers used to be tabloid rags or scandal sheets - nothing wrong with that model even today.
15
2. Lay off most of the workforce - disagreed, since the P-I doesn't have many advertising and physical plant or distribution people (they're all Times technically).
True, but even with those conditions they still lost $14M last year. And the first you have to do post-JOA is load up on a sales force.
3. Print only a few times a week - maybe, but nobody says you have to print a paper that is too big for the supporting ad revenue.
True, but the question is whether you want to go at the Times or not, and if you do, it might be smarter to stay in print and try to peel off the old folks.
The primary problem with the business model is that we're in a recession right now. The secondary problem is that they refuse to do what the P-I used to do - sell half the front page for ads, put corner ads on the front of sections, and get rid of the overpriced sports coverage.
Your primary problem is about the right now, but the papers have long been in decline; the recession is more like papers catching pneumonia after been ill for years. Remember, the Times/P-I JOA hasn't been profitable since the 2000 strike. And remember that we've seen this long, slow decline for papers for over 30 years now. TV was the first culprit; now it's the internet.
As for the secondary problem, I don't think the sports coverage is the problem -- they've had award-winning coverage for years, and a sizable chunk of their readership buys the paper for sports. With their ads, how much is the Times the problem here? They've been running the advertising under the JOA.
And they need to consider that most papers used to be tabloid rags or scandal sheets - nothing wrong with that model even today.
Something that slipped under a number of folks radars about the 2006 JOA changes was that Hearst had the right to switch the P-I to a tabloid. So, that's still an option out there for anyone that wants to keep the P-I in print. And given the liberal politics of this town, you could do very well by taking the P-I left AND tabloid.
More...
True, but even with those conditions they still lost $14M last year. And the first you have to do post-JOA is load up on a sales force.
3. Print only a few times a week - maybe, but nobody says you have to print a paper that is too big for the supporting ad revenue.
True, but the question is whether you want to go at the Times or not, and if you do, it might be smarter to stay in print and try to peel off the old folks.
The primary problem with the business model is that we're in a recession right now. The secondary problem is that they refuse to do what the P-I used to do - sell half the front page for ads, put corner ads on the front of sections, and get rid of the overpriced sports coverage.
Your primary problem is about the right now, but the papers have long been in decline; the recession is more like papers catching pneumonia after been ill for years. Remember, the Times/P-I JOA hasn't been profitable since the 2000 strike. And remember that we've seen this long, slow decline for papers for over 30 years now. TV was the first culprit; now it's the internet.
As for the secondary problem, I don't think the sports coverage is the problem -- they've had award-winning coverage for years, and a sizable chunk of their readership buys the paper for sports. With their ads, how much is the Times the problem here? They've been running the advertising under the JOA.
And they need to consider that most papers used to be tabloid rags or scandal sheets - nothing wrong with that model even today.
Something that slipped under a number of folks radars about the 2006 JOA changes was that Hearst had the right to switch the P-I to a tabloid. So, that's still an option out there for anyone that wants to keep the P-I in print. And given the liberal politics of this town, you could do very well by taking the P-I left AND tabloid.
16
But if they get rid of the JOA somehow, doesn't that mean they'd have to HIRE a bunch of ad and printing and delivery people?
21
The P-I could have gotten rid of the JOA long ago. The Times would have agreed to it in a heartbeat; that's what they've been pushing for. It's the P-I that kept it alive. Without the JOA the P-I would have no personnel or mechanisms to sell ads, print the paper (obviously that can be outsourced) or do circulation. Anyone who thinks that could somehow help them be profitable displays total ignorance of business.
Which would describe the vast majority of folks posting on Slog.
Which would describe the vast majority of folks posting on Slog.
22
Interesting choice of law firms, not one I would use if I was not a local buyer and even then there are better choices.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Life and Death in a Recliner in South Carolina by Dan Savage
-
Health at Every Size by Dan Savage
-
"Let his days be few... Let his children be fatherless and his wife a widow." by Dan Savage
-
Pit Bulls! by Dan Savage
-
Becoming a Man by Dan Savage
-
$2,600,000,000 by Dan Savage
-
All The Best Men Are Taken by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Hot & Drunk by Dan Savage
-
I Hate You, Garrison Keillor by Jen Graves
-
Unreal Americans by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (22) RSS