Chicago’s shifting media landscape

Hey guys, I’m back! I’ve cross-posted this from my blog, Nerdlusus. Enjoy.

With the news that Ariana Huffington plans to take the Huffington Post local by aggregating news around geographic locations, I began to think how her plan to start this effort in Chicago would affect the already tumultuous media climate in the Windy City.

Huffington, who rocks not one but TWO Blackberrys, doesn’t just see her city-specific sites covering politics like her current effort does. Somewhat surprisingly, she intends to mimic the newspaper model, the Guardian reports:

Huffington said the Chicago site would aggregate news, sports, crime, arts and business news from different local sources as well as contributions from bloggers in what will be the first of a series of projects in “dozens of US cities”. The Chicago site will initially be curated by just one editor.

“We are aspiring to be a newspaper in that we want to covering all news, not just the political blogging the way we began,” said Huffington, speaking at Guardian News & Media’s internal Future of Journalism conference.

While I don’t believe the Chicago version of the Huffington Post will spell the end of the Chicago Tribune or the Chicago Sun-Times, I think the decision to target this city in particular shows a shrewd familiarity of the weaknesses of the two daily papers and their online properties. It seems almost paradoxical that at a time when two newspapers face financial turmoil, one of the largest news and political sites decides it’s a good time to move in.

Some people still remember when Chicago used to be a town with four daily newspapers, including the Chicago Today American and the Chicago Daily News. Also gone is the Chicago City News Bureau, which is legendary for the term “if your mother says she loves you, check it out.” And now the city has two papers on the brink of collapse.

The struggling Sun-Times

And now the Sun-Times just went through layoffs and other suburban papers are laying off employees and merging. Even the copy-editing desks are being merged together into one location for the suburban papers.

Frankly, it doesn’t look much better for the Sun-Times as Crain’s Chicago Business reports that more cuts are still ahead:

Raymond Seitz, chairman of the publishing company, blamed a combination of declining advertising revenue and a shift in information gathering habits for contributing to a “difficult year” for the company.

“The Sun-Times itself is the most widely read in Chicago . . . and yet we continue to struggle,” Mr. Seitz said. “We will work hard on these problems in the year ahead.”

Sun-Times CEO Cyrus Freidheim, Jr., said the company has enough “cash to weather the worst storms over the next two to three years,” but you can can’t help but wonder if things really will get better in the 12-18 months he’s expecting the economy to turn around. Newspapers aren’t declining just because of the economy — they’re just declining faster.

Of course, the Sun-Times is looking for a savior, too:

Cyrus Freidheim Jr. said at the annual meeting of Sun-Times Media Group Inc. that it is reviewing offers from potential buyers and would consider a transaction that takes the publicly traded company private. Such a deal could be structured so that some major shareholders retain an ownership stake.

Freidheim noted that the company has some financial advantages compared with other media operations. Sun-Times has no debt except for an unresolved tax liability and has about $120 million in cash.

But getting a buyer probably won’t be easy. After all, buying a newspaper isn’t exactly something everyone’s lining up for these days.

Why ‘hyperlocal’ GateHouse would be a disaster for the Sun-Times

Buying a newspaper company means taking on more debt for an existing company. A potential buyer could be someone like GateHouse Media (GHS), known for buying up bunches of hyperlocal newspaper properties, clustered together geographically. The company’s already picked up a lot of smaller weeklies and shoppers in Illinois, along with mid-size metros in Springfield, Peoria and Rockford. On the surface, they appear to be a logical choice and the Sun-Times clusters of suburban papers are certainly attractive to their business strategy.

However, they’ve got their own debt problems. In fact, their debt problems could be the end of them as 24/7 Wall Street speculates:

At the end of the last quarter, Gatehouse had a little over $10 million in cash. Its long-term debt stands at over $1.2 billion. Goodwill is at just below $700 million.

During the last quarter, GHS lost $29 million on revenue of $170 million. Debt service was $24.4 million. Gatehouse has a huge dividend which it will almost certainly have to eliminate, taking away the sole reason for holding the shares.

Watch for GHS to be broken up before the end of the year or to enter Chapter 11.

And GateHouse has taken a huge hit. The company’s stock keeps hitting 52-week lows, they’re in “junk bond” status and the Motley Fool’s placed them on their list of 5 Deathbed Stocks. While they might have unloaded Copley’s Illinois papers and Gannet’s only Illinois paper, GateHouse probably can’t afford to take on much more debt.

GateHouse wouldn’t be a good solution for the Sun-Times News Group papers. Sure, a buyer is a buyer, but what’s the point of being bought by a company that’s already in fiscal trouble? No point in joining a ship that’s already heavy enough to sink.

Debt: an Achilles heel for newspapers

Earlier this year, Alan Mutter wrote about the fall of the Journal Register Co. (JRCO) and it’s a textbook example of what may become of other newspaper companies:

In addition to leaving JRC with some of the leanest-running newspapers in the land, [CEO Robert Jelenic] also left the company with the hefty $628.4 million in debt that now threatens to force it into bankruptcy. Most of the debt results from one bold, but less than successful, acquisition he undertook in 2004 in an effort to keep the company’s sales, profits and stock price growing.

Not only did the transaction prove over time to be a serious miscalculation, but a steep drop in JRC’s sales in the last two years has made it increasingly unlikely that the company can generate enough profits in the future to service its ponderous debt.

Mutter also produced a two-part series of questions and answers about debt and newspapers you can view here and here. While it’s not the most exciting topic in the world, it’s definitely a large part of the problem journalism is facing as an industry.

Mutter is quoted in Editor & Publisher’s special report on debt and the newspaper crisis:

But newspapers didn’t realize they were living in a historical aberration, says Alan D. Mutter, the San Francisco-based newspaper and new media consultant. News- paper profit margins were at historical highs, and credit was readily available.

“There was this impetus during the credit bubble to load up on debt, and amass more assets to somehow get better,” he explains. “It’s happening in other industries, too. Delta is a bad airline, and Northwestern is a bad airline, so lets put them together and somehow we’ll get a good airline.” The high debt wasn’t seen as a problem, Mutter adds, because it “was premised on an extraordinarily high level of profitability that is not sustainable.”

And that’s the crisis in a nutshell. All of this debt with no promising revenues in sight to pay it off. And with no new money comes the pressure to cut.

The troubled Tribune

The Sun-Times might hope they would fare better under private ownership. After all, that was the thinking behind Sam Zell’s purchase of the Tribune. While the Tribune was bailed out by Sam Zell, known for saying “fuck you” to his new employees and providing plenty of colorful quotations, the company is still facing a bevy of problems.

To Zell’s credit, he’s been the opposite of boring. Press releases from the Tribune have offended some, coming off as downright sexist. He’s brought in executives that issue memos with crazy ideas to innovate newspapers with the grace of a mind on too much caffeine (Steve Outing muses if we’re watching a train wreck in the process at Tribune headquarters). And there’s a redesign coming to the Tribune’s metro papers, including the Chicago paper — which already had a front-page tweak and a less-than-impressive overhaul of its Web site.

But the question is how much of this will actually help bring down the Tribune’s mammoth $13 billion debt? Probably none of it.

Back in April, there was already speculation the Tribune will default on its debt in 2009:

Tribune has nearly $4 billion in debt and interest payments due by the end of 2009, according to Gimme Credit analyst Dave Novosel, making it all but certain that the company will be forced to sell more marquee properties and make deeper cost cuts to avoid violating debt covenants.

“Tribune is a big microcosm of issues across the industry, and Sam Zell made an unfortunate bet, if you will, jumping into a business he knew nothing about,” said veteran newspaper analyst Miles Groves.

And now, in June, news breaks that the Tribune’s taken to counting bylines and inches produced by reporters in the printed product and aiming for a smaller newshole while trimming page count. The headlines were dominated with the news:

In discussing the company’s efforts to alter its cost structure in the face of rapidly eroding industry conditions, Michaels said in a conference call that Tribune is “actively pursuing a plan to right-size” the newspaper operation. – Tribune

The editor of the Chicago Tribune issued a memo Thursday to prepare her reporters and editors for drastic changes in content and painful reductions in staff. – Sun-Times

Tribune Company newspapers like The Los Angeles Times and The Chicago Tribune will quickly cut costs — by printing fewer papers and employing fewer journalists — top company executives said on Thursday. – The New York Times

With top man Sam Zell weighing in, cutbacks in staffing and number of pages in the papers were also put loudly on the table.

Michaels said of the changes, “This is going to happen quickly.” Zell added: “I promise you, he’s underestimating the level of aggressiveness with which we are attacking this whole challenge.” – Editor & Publisher

There’s only one thought that came to my mind when I read this: “More with less.” And I think that American Journalism Review’s Rem Rieder put it much better: “Sam Zell wants to destroy the village in order to save it.”

But if all you’re bringing to the table is mindless ax-wielding, why bother? There’s no way drastically weakening your product in a bitterly competitive media landscape is a recipe for success.

In-depth, hard-hitting enterprise efforts are one of the key offerings that differentiate good newspapers and their Web sites from their numerous competitors. They are an important component of the brand.

Indeed, it seems that so far Zell hasn’t been the savior of the Tribune. More than a year ago, Jason Calacanis predicted Zell would lose billions because of a comment Zell made about Google to the Washington Post:

“If all of the newspapers in America did not allow Google to steal their content, how profitable would Google be?” Zell said during the question period after his speech. “Not very.”

As Calacanis points out, Zell has no idea how Google works and how it actually benefits the Tribune’s papers to have Google’s bots index their sites.

And while Zell might stand to lose billions in his latest venture, Chicago stands to lose a lot more.

‘Will newspapers survive?’

Even Chicago’s own journalists aren’t exactly optimists. On June 12, the Chicago Headline Club and the Northern Illinois Newspaper Association met and Chicago Reader’s Mike Miner described them going through the stages of dying.

You can see video of the discussions here and here. To be quite honest, the tone seems somber — at least for newspapers. The most excited the panelists seem to get about the printed product is the trashy, free commuter rag, RedEye, as being a consumer success. Not exactly the most encouraging thing for hard-news, shoeleather journalists to hear in a city filled with endless stories about politics, corruption, crime and public affairs. It’s like knocking over Royko’s tombstone to hear that RedEye is the city’s fastest growing publication.

But the problem’s not just the quality of the content in newspapers. It’s also a business problem.

TechCrunch reports that the top 100 advertisers shifted more than $1 billion away from TV and newspapers to online, which can only accelerate the decline of the daily in Chicago.

While that shift wouldn’t be so bad for newspapers if the revenues went directly from print properties to online properties of newspapers, that’s simply not the case. Online advertising opportunities are more abundant with more sites clamoring for advertising dollars. And with total advertising dollars remaining somewhat level, that means the more advertising money shifted online means more of it is distributed across a larger number of properties. In other words, newspapers get less because the Internet is more competitive for advertising sales.

And this is an industry-wide fear, as reported by The New York Times, when advertising revenue slips in greater numbers than ever before. As the audience shifts online, the money follows the audience. With an online marketplace, however, the choices are greater and the revenues are harder to get for companies in this intensely competitive environment. Frankly, newspapers aren’t suited to do battle with the Internet giants that understood from the beginning how to make money online. And newspaper companies mostly don’t have the financial resources to invest in themselves to be even remotely competitive.

To answer the question, if newspapers will survive, the answer seems to be a vague answer of “no.” But in Chicago, I’m willing to bet that there’s a distinct possibility that neither the Sun-Times or the Tribune will survive the next decade.

This isn’t to say these dailies don’t produce good content, or that the journalists working there are somehow subpar. In fact, I don’t believe that’s the case at all. There’s obviously talent there. But talent alone can’t turn around the financial situations of these institutions, nor can it change the advertising climate the Internet’s created.

If the Tribune can’t make its debt payments, they’re screwed. If the Sun-Times can’t find a willing buyer, they’re screwed. And in general, they’re all screwed because they’re both tied too deeply to advertising revenues. The numbers don’t add up in their favor.

The shifting media landscape

The Huffington Post local site will probably work. With one employee solely dedicated to merely aggregation, it’s hard to not be profitable with that low of an overhead. Obviously, there will be the inevitable cries from both the Tribune and Sun-Times that the Huffington Post site is merely piggybacking off of the hard work of journalists at their papers. And that’s a legitimate criticism, but it ignores the larger question: Why hasn’t either paper started up their own news aggregation site?

What Ariana Huffington is proposing isn’t anything particularly special or complicated. She’s just put money behind an idea that’s potentially lucrative because no one’s bothered to do it before. And here’s the reason why her site will do it better than the Sun-Times or Tribune ever will: Hyperlinks.

Rarely does the Tribune or Sun-Times link outside of their Web site to local bloggers or other Chicago-media sites (i.e.: EveryBlock, Chicagoist, Gapers Block, Chi Town Daily News). Nor do they embed YouTube videos, make use of Flickr, be active on Twitter or actually understand the concept of creating a community on their Web sites through commenters. And we haven’t even talked social networking yet.

Instead, they build walled gardens, which defeats the philosophy of the Internet. Making things worse is that most of their new media content, such as videos, cannot be embedded to a reader’s blog or shared easily. And the Tribune removes its articles from the public view after little more than a week, meaning that search engines can’t index it and send them more page views and more revenue.

I’ve got a gut feeling there’s a whole lot of room to exploit Chicago’s weak online media scene. There’s plenty of room for niche blogs where a handful of writers can make a living covering just a narrow set of interests. This is how Gawker Media has been able to be successful (along with a good sales staff). Once others wise up to what Ariana’s doing, I think you’ll see more single-topic properties pop up in Chicago. It just takes an investor, a workhorse writer and some simple marketing to get it to work.

Some ideas I see becoming popular quickly would be professional sports, improv theater, music and food. If a writer could be financed for a year to completely own one of those topics and had a decent sales/marketing staff behind him/her, then I think you’d start to see this shift away from the daily papers.

The question is who will pony up the money and take the plunge?

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

There Are 17 Responses So Far. »

  1. Look man, no offense or anything, but that post must have been 10,000 words long. Do you really expect people to read that many words? You should have broken it up into several posts over several days. Our readership is mostly people who read on break at work and don’t like the lengthy ones.

  2. yah. i just looked at the comments to see what this post was about. no luck.

    shorter is better. :-)

  3. The main point of the article is “Chicago newspapers are screwed.” If the topic doesn’t interest you, then don’t read it. Go watch a funny YouTube video. However, if you’re interested in the “why” of that statement, then that’s what I set out to explore.

    I get what you’re saying about shorter is better for the purposes of this blog, but frankly I didn’t write this for Urbanagora. I originally wrote it for myself and Josh asked me to cross post it here, which I did.

    Concerning the construction of piece itself, I wanted to present an idea comprised of multiple parts, which might not stand alone by themselves. You can make the argument for a series, but I personally hate serialized things. The reader is forced to go back and catch up. It makes more sense to present the idea as a whole.

    I could sum up the main ideas in a bulleted list, but how I reached those conclusions is what composes the depth of the piece.

    I already have a blog where I share the superficial things I find online. But, if I’m going to take the time to express my thoughts on a complicated idea, then I’m going to write it out completely without regard to length. I write for me, not an audience. If others happen to want to read it, so be it. If not, I don’t care.

  4. Fuck those bitches. If you don’t have time to read it, then don’t. Yoshi knows his shit on media, and I consider anything he writes on this subject worth reading, of any length. If you don’t, it’s your loss. You’re missing a chance to be able to say, I read Kiyoshi Martinez’s stuff before he made it big, which he is sure to do. So fuck you. Fuck you both.

    If you have any problem w/ the length of the post, I ASKED HIM TO POST IT HERE, in its entirety, so bitch to me, and then I will quickly dismiss your complaint, because it is petty and a much bigger waste of my time than your reading something by yoshi 8 times as long as this piece.

  5. Yosh- 2?s

    What impact do you think devices like the Kindle will have on newspapers?

    What about the impact of the increased use of RSS feed readers on blog revenues?

  6. 1.) Forget the Kindle. Think more about the iPhone. In general, the rise of mobile content delivery will surpass the remaining redeeming quality a newspaper has: portability. Newspapers are nice for the fact you can take them on the bus/train and occupy the time browsing through a cheap (or free) source of information.

    But you’re seeing a shift away from that now. Even the iPod is more interesting to people commuting than reading a free rag like RedEye.

    Newspapers are going to have to compete not just in the content economy, but also in the attention economy. Time is a valued resource. Advertisers want to go where people’s time is being spent. If I’m reading stuff on my iPhone and your site isn’t mobile friendly (ie: streaming video over AT&T’s networks, sites that format nicely for the screen size, etc.) then I’m going to go elsewhere to fill that time.

    I think newspapers have really been lucky so far that mobile delivery hasn’t taken off as much as the Internet itself has. The Internet itself won’t kill newspapers, the death blow comes from mobile. And cell networks are finally at the point where they have enough bandwidth and speed to put what’s on the Internet into the palm of your hand in real time.

    To specifically address Kindle, I think it’s a niche device and not made for mass audiences. It’s been designed to read books and replace your bookshelf library. The wifi-enabled abilities coupled with RSS feed reading is nice, but not it’s strong point, I don’t think. It’s a text machine, not a media machine like the iPhone and its clones to come.

    2.) RSS is great for publishing content, but not great for advertising.

    When you go to a Web site (a good one, like nytimes.com) advertisers purchase display ads. Sometimes these ads are targeted against keywords in the content. Othertimes, it’s a general ad buy (ie: I want this many impressions ANYWHERE).

    Additionally, take into consideration Google’s pioneering in keyword search advertising: looking at user intent on a topic and advertising against that. It’s nearly perfect.

    But the problem with RSS is several fold. First of all, none of the people reading on RSS will see a display ad that’s been targeted, unless it’s been targeted for the whole feed.

    Also, once an item is delivered to an RSS reader, it cannot change. Unlike a webpage where the ad can change over time (this week it’s Swiss watches, next week Dell computers), the ad delivered via RSS will never change and will lose relevance over time. It’s static, not dynamic advertising. It’s like that irrelevant billboard you see on the highway that hasn’t been changed in years and they don’t even sell that product anymore.

    The other problem is that of attention. Again, advertisers want to go where people are spending their time. RSS users tend to be scanners because they have so much information to sift through, they don’t have time to do a deep read unless something catches their eye.

    Worse yet, unlike web surfing where people click on links that are of interest, RSS delivers you content that you might or might not be interested enough to read in. That’s a lot of ads that potentially will never see an audience that they were paid for (hey, kind of like newspaper ads in sections you throw right into the recycling).

    I don’t think RSS hurts a blog, but it shouldn’t be treated as the primary way to distribute your content. And certainly don’t publish your entire post onto the feed if you want to make money.

    Force people to engage in your site. Get them to the site so they can comment on articles and be a part of the discussion. Make that “stickiness” factor higher.

    The best way to view RSS if you’re a smaller publisher is that it’s a good way to advertise you’ve updated. But good sites won’t rely on RSS to make them money. They’ll work on getting an active community to stick with the site itself. After all, advertisers want to know pageview stats, not how many subscribers you have.

  7. Go take some midol Joshua

  8. The first two comments are further proof of the “dumbing down” of America. Great post, very, very informative.

  9. Kiyoshi and Josh,

    One of the major vulnerabilities plaguing the old media outlets is the increasingly short attention span of the public. We want our news immediately and in short, digestable pieces. We do not wait for the daily news to be summed up in a half hour at 5pm. We do not wait for the daily news to be thoroughly reported the next morning. We certainly do not wait for Time or Newsweek to sum up a whole week for us. These mediums are dying, and the only reason they are not already dead is because the generations that utilize those mediums are still hanging on… for now. This post, no matter how intelligent, or relevant, or on point, is, as Brandon noted in a much nicer way, TOO FUCKING LONG. Not only is it inappropriate for the young generation this sites readership consists of, its too long for a blog. A blog lives and dies off its comments. Its a COMMUNITY circle jerk; not a solo jerk (do that in the privacy of your bedroom). How the hell can Brandon and I bicker at each other when theres three dozen different points made in a single post? No matter how much someone might disagree with the various premises and conclusion of this post, by the time they reach they end they simply shrug and say fuck it – I disagree but I dont have the time or energy to address every point. So what is Kiyoshi trying to accomplish? If he is trying to inform, he has failed because he ran too long. If he is trying to engage, he failed because he vomitted talking points. If he is trying to convince himself he is right based upon the absence of opposition, then he has done a wonderful job.

  10. Kofi:

    What was I trying to accomplish? Two things: writing about something I was interested in and then sharing it with others. That’s it.

    I left journalism because I discovered that writing in that profession wasn’t fun at all. Dumb it down for your audience. Write to shorter/longer for space. Include this detail, omit this detail. Write this story that’s bullshit. Don’t write this story because the editor doesn’t think it’s relevant. Etc. You work for others, not yourself and your personal satisfaction.

    The wonderful thing about doing personal blogging is that I don’t have to put up with any of that. Instead, I get to do what I want. It makes me happy.

    I don’t care about a reader’s short attention span online, how what I wrote makes it hard for them to have an argument on the Internet with someone else or growing readership.

    I accomplished what I set out to do and I’m happy with that. What have you, Brandon and anonymous accomplished that’s made your life happier by complaining about something I wrote?

  11. Well, it’s almost made me spontaneously combust to see Kofi defend my relatively polite suggestion that the post was a bit long. I’d say that was quite an accomplishment. Kofi and I never agree on anything. I’d say it made my bleeding heart warm and bleed a bit faster for a moment there. I’d call it the warm fuzzies, but Kofi’s stone heart might turn to ice at the suggestion.

    See there’s this funny thing about blogging, it’s for people to read. I’m not even passing judgment on what you wrote, just saying that I’d rather not scroll past your Master’s thesis on Chicago media to get to see what has developed in the provocative honor killings post. Tom posts long too, but he generally is polite enough to put down the first thousand or so words then link to the rest for convenience.

  12. Kiyoshi:

    Fair enough. If all you intended was to shoot your thoughts off into the expanse that is the internet, that is fine. Job well done. I just found it ironic that a post describing some of the problems facing old media outlets would exhibit so many of symptoms plaguing them.

  13. Thanks for the shout out, Brandon.

    Interesting article, Kiyoshi. Seems like we’re at another critical juncture in the media outlets. Have you ever read anything by Robert McChesney…specifically his book The Problem of the Media?

    I see what these commentors mean about length, however.

  14. Brandon: If I’d been using WordPress, I would have used a more/after-the-jump cut. As far as I know, Blogger doesn’t have that functionality. If the style guide here says “posts over X length must be linked off site” then I’ll gladly do that.

    Kofi: I’m aware of the contradiction. But at the same time, this blog isn’t an online media property seeking to uproot old media. It’s not a business. It’s not trying to increase readership to get advertising money. We’re playing with completely different rules here, and if we break them none of us are out of a job.

  15. Kiyoshi–

    Of course the issue is not about being out of a job, but rather who your ideas reach. If people aren’t reading your blog post, what is the point?

    I am disappointed that the comments on your post have dealt with the length of your post, instead of dealing with the actual content of your post. But, I can understand the reason…

  16. Segen:

    Publishing on the web isn’t just about pushing your thoughts on others and forcing them to read it. It’s also about people searching and finding content on topics they’re interested in.

    Long after this post drops off the front page, it’ll still be indexed by Google and available to anyone searching for posts written on this topic. Your audience online isn’t just who’s reading your blog regularly, it’s also those who find your content later by seeking out information on the topic.

    The only time I’d be concerned if people weren’t reading what I wrote is if pageviews equated my income (see the Gawker Media pay system).

  17. One failing of the current blog format is that we lack a truncating format that lists the first few hundred words and allows a reader to click more to prevent having to scroll past a longer article. The redesigned blog will have this feature, and the redesign is in progress. Our faithful web admin Buck tells me he hopes to have the bulk of the design changes made this week.

    Also, this shouldn’t be a problem even here if you’re the least bit adaptable, because there is a link to recent posts on the sidebar you can, for instance, click to get to Segen’s honor killing post

Post a Response