Media Curmudgeon

« October 2008 | Main | December 2008 »

November 29, 2008

The Zell Smell

Tribune Company’s owner Sam Zell’s ideas are so old and decaying that they are beginning to smell rancid. He’s playing a hindsight blame game similar to another old, rich dinosaur, Rupert Murdoch, and to bloviating, self-promoting Internet guru Jeff Jarvis.

Recently Zell spoke with Condé Nast Portfolio editor in chief Joanne Lipman at Quadrangle Group's Foursquare media conference. The always outspoken Zell consistently puts in his foot in his mouth, and his interview with Lipman was no exception.

You remember Sam Zell, the real estate billionaire who bought the Tribune Company in what turned out to be the Brooklyn Bridge of media deals. For years radio stations, TV stations, and newspaper companies sold for escalating prices based on the greater fool theory. In April, 2007, when Zell bought the Tribune Company, he proved to be the greatest fool of all – the mark the Tribune Company shareholders had been praying for.

The real estate mogul opens his mouth often but can’t seem to find enough feet to fill the open gap. He has said that the newspaper business was “like any other business." He has said he said that he was skeptical of using staff reductions to increase profit and he told the Los Angeles Times, “I promise you I did not come here to be the captain of the Titanic.” Of course, no sooner did he buy the paper than he started to fire people.

Here, among many other silly things, is what Zell said in the Lipman interview:

We did not have a single salesperson on commission. In other words, every single newspaper had a cadre of salaried salesman. Now, you know, I'm just a businessman, but I've never seen any kind of a sales force that was effective if, in fact, they had no incentives. Now, part of the reason is that historically, because it was a monopoly, newspapers heavily depended, and still do, on national advertising, where the salesman is an order taker. When the guy from Macy's calls and says, "We want six pages," you don't say to him, "Well, how about nine." You just say, "Yes, sir. Send me the check and we're on." But, among other things, what that led to was a massive abdication of potential advertisers within the local markets using zones, so that, in effect, the zone belongs to the salesman. Nobody else can go in there. Even if nobody has bought anything in that zone for 20 years, it's still his territory.

Recently Rupert Murdoch and Jeff Jarvis have blamed reporters and editors (journalists) for the demise of the newspaper industry, now Zell is blaming the salespeople. Who’s next, circulation managers?

It’s inconceivable to Zell that he was fool to buy the Tribune Company in April of 2007 when anyone under the age of 45 (Zell was 66 at the time) could have told him the newspaper industry was toast because of the most disruptive of all technologies – the Internet. He can’t conceive of admitting, “I was a fool.” He has to lash out and blame someone else – common scapegoating behavior – not himself.

What Zell is doing is relying on old business models and assumptions to run a media business, which he obviously knows nothing about, as evidenced by the above quote about salary-based newspaper salespeople and moronic, completely uninformed mumbo jumbo about “using zones.” Similar to Murdoch and Jarvis, he’s blaming horses for the decline in the sale of buggy whips instead of the invention of the automobile.

He’s also using a dinosaur-like assumption about human nature – that all salespeople (or anyone, for that matter) care about is money. He apparently believes money is the only motivator. Typical of this type of projection, he’s saying, “Greed motivates me, so it must motivate everyone.”

This assumption might have worked in the real estate business in the 1980s, but it doesn’t today. Behavioral economists are now aware of the discovery of an altruism gene that sheds light on the nagging mystery of how generosity and cooperation evolved over the eons. Rather than the traditional economic thinking that people act only based on rational self-interest, behavioral economists realize that people will often behave and vote irrationally against their own self-interest and for the common, greater good.

Thus, president-elect Obama was supported by millions of people making over $250,000 a year who realized that their taxes were going to be raised. Why? Because Zell is wrong about human nature. Greed is not good. Because people can be altruistic and cooperative.

This is why Sam Zell and his attempted re-make of the Tribune Company newspapers and blaming of journalists and salespeople will fail. He doesn’t understand his employees or his consumers. He thinks they are like he is – dumb, self-interested, and greedy. And they’re not.

Zell’s ideas are so old and wrong that they smell.

Posted by Charles Warner at 5:27 PM | Comments (2) | Print |

Media Curmudgeon at November 30, 2008 9:11 PM writes:

---

Adina Montgomery at November 29, 2008 11:53 PM writes:

---

A Christmas Book

Guest blogger Paul Talbot sets exactly the right tone for the Holiday Season ahead:

“What book do you want to get him?” asked my bride.

I didn’t give it a second’s thought.

“Make Way for Ducklings.”

One of our friends had asked us to pick out a few Christmas gift books for her son, who is just starting to read.

The book has been sitting on a filing cabinet for a few days and this morning I read it once again. Years ago I read it to my daughters and years before that my mother read it to me.

While we speculate, pontificate and otherwise ruminate on the directions of media, sixty-seven year old treasures such as Robert McCloskey’s book are an uncommon comfort.

Children’s books stitch together otherwise frayed generations. They fertilize family tradition and unearth lost memories of our personal history.

“Make Way for Ducklings” was published in 1941. The same summer that Mrs. Mallard led her ducklings through Boston’s Beacon Hill under police protection to the Public Garden, another kind of history was unfolding a few miles away. At Fenway Park, Ted Williams had his .406 season.

Just as baseball players lure us back into the past, just as they bind generations, so do children’s books.

And Robert McCloskey was as much a master of his craft as Ted Williams was of his.

Posted by Charles Warner at 1:54 PM | Comments (0) | Print |

November 18, 2008

Murdoch the Hypocrite

As reported by Charles Cooper on CNET.com, the wily old media mogul, Rupert Murdoch, in a recent lecture sponsored by the Australian Broadcast Corporation said that with newspapers cutting back, and predictions of even worse times ahead, “the print media may still have a bright future, if it can shake free of reporters and editors who he said have forfeited the trust and loyalty of their readers.”

Murdoch, a scion of the established media opined:

My summary of the way some of the established media has responded to the Internet is this: It's not newspapers that might become obsolete. It's some of the editors, reporters, and proprietors who are forgetting a newspaper's most precious asset: the bond with its readers.

The complacency stems from having enjoyed a monopoly--and now finding they have to compete for an audience they once took for granted. The condescension that many show their readers is an even bigger problem. It takes no special genius to point out that if you are contemptuous of your customers, you are going to have a hard time getting them to buy your product. Newspapers are no exception.

In other words, Murdoch is saying that editors aren’t pandering to their “customers” enough; aren’t giving them what they want like his newspapers, such as the smarmy NY Post are. The fact that he refers to his readers as customers reveals that he believes he’s in the advertising delivery business, not the legitimate news business.

Murdoch is such a hypocrite. He’s apparently blaming “complacent” and “contemptuous” newspaper reporters and editors for the decline of newspaper circulation and advertising revenue because of readers switching to the Internet. That’s like blaming horses for the decline in the sale of buggy whips because of the invention of the automobile.

And what was Murdoch’s response to the decline in newspaper circulation? It was to journalistically whore up a once-decent newspaper, the NY Post. He’s blaming “complacent” and “contemptuous” editors for newspaper declines in circulation and revenue, yet his gossip rag, the NY Post, is losing over $40 million a year as a vanity publishing venture because respectable, big-spending advertisers won’t touch its noxious content with a ten-foot pole. The Post’s editors are not contemptuous of their readers, they give them what they want – trash – and it costs Murdoch millions.

Posted by Charles Warner at 1:34 PM | Comments (1) | Print |

Media Curmudgeon at November 19, 2008 8:40 AM writes:

---

November 15, 2008

Tears of Gratitude

Guest blogger Crickett Warner writes:

My father wept after watching Barack Obama win the election. During the last two years, my father showed a passion for politics like I have never seen before. He and his wife, Julia, worked tirelessly supporting Obama's win on Tuesday night. But it was more than Obama, more than politics; my father was working towards ideals, core human values that he has espoused for years. Throughout my childhood and well into my adulthood, my father has held to his core values: equality, justice, tolerance, acceptance, and freedom of choice.

That Wednesday morning, I wept, too.

Being a school night, we all went to bed early Tuesday night. Very early the next morning, all three of my sons climbed into bed, wiggled under the down comforter, wedging themselves between me and my partner to look at the results on CNN.com on my laptop. We played video clips of both speeches, all of us appreciative of McCain's gracious speech and call to work together on our common future.

Then we looked at the other video clip. Watching Obama's acceptance speech, I wept lying next to my 13-year-old who has no idea who Jesse Jackson is, no idea what incredible shifts our country has gone through in the last 50 years, and no idea why it was such a big deal to have such a colorful rainbow of faces at that acceptance celebration. And my 11-year-old who was happy that it was finally over. His favorite -- the candidate he chose at his school's mock election because of Obama's nice smile, kind voice, and hopeful message -- was going to be our next president. And my six-year-old who really, truly, honestly has no idea that Obama is black. He really doesn't see color, just people, categorizing them into nice or mean.

I wept for each one of these boys. Wept with gratitude that they don't see color as an issue. Wept that their small-town world view does not include racism and automatic fear of differences. Wept that they really don't understand why Jesse Jackson was weeping. And wept for myself and Jackson since I did have an understanding of what he had been through and the incredibly challenging road that our country has traveled to get where we are now.

I wept at having them lie comfortably between me and my partner, not seeing "gay" in our little family unit. They love their mother, they love their Kerri, or "half-mother" as my 6-year-old calls her. The idea that anyone out there would have an issue with our family unit is beyond them: they feel completely comfortable and loved. What could be wrong about that? Gay rights are a non-issue for them; acceptance is just natural.

I wept at their not understanding why having women run for president and vice president was such a big deal, not knowing what an incredible shift they are seeing in the path of our nation in regards to women's roles. The two older boys both play hockey and have had girls on their teams since they were very young. My 11-year-old's football team had a girl playing quarterback this fall. And he never questioned it: she was really good, she earned it. They have seen girls as their equals from the beginning of their short lives. Women's rights are a non-issue for them: equality is just natural.

Earlier in the fall, the subject of abortion came up. I explained briefly what the different sides were and, without any prompting from me, my 11-year-old said "Well, DUH! It's the woman's body, she gets to choose! Duh..." Freedom of choice is just natural.

I wept for their lovely innocence and complete tolerance of those who are different. Wept in gratitude for the plate-tectonic shift in this world that they are an integral part of and the hopeful future that is theirs. Wept that they really have no idea about racism, sexism, homophobia. And wept in sadness, knowing of the potential loss of their innocence when they emerge -- all too soon -- from the sweet bubble we have gently kept them in.

My three sons are on the leading edge of the new millenium: color- blind, gender-unbiased, and tolerant of differences. And they are glad to live in Massachusetts so that their mother can someday marry the woman that they all love so dearly.

I wept looking at the beautiful variety of faces in the crowd at Obama's acceptance speech. In the months to come, we shall see the truth of campaign promises. But from what he has said and how he has acted, Obama believes in and embodies the same core human values that my boys -- and my father -- inherently, instinctively believe in: acceptance, equality, freedom of choice, tolerance, justice,and compassion.

I wept in gratitude for how far we have come. And I wept with gladness at my sons' innocence. And I wept with hope for the future of all the children of this changing world.

Posted by Charles Warner at 10:06 AM | Comments (0) | Print |

November 12, 2008

The Turnover

After seeing the PBS “Frontline” program last night on Lee Atwater, I understand better why so many people (including me) had been turned off by politics, thinking Atwater’s protégé, Karl Rove, and the Swift Boaters had taken over. But Obama gave us hope. My wife and I and many of our senior-citizen friends were moved by the young senator to try to change the old system of mud-slinging politics.

During the New York primary last February, I volunteered to campaign for Obama. I was told via Obama’s Web site to show up at a nearby Starbucks and meet with my team leader, Sean Henry. When I showed up at 8:30 a.m. on a cold morning, I met my team. I was at least 50 years older than Sean and three team members, but two other team members were senior citizens. “Cool,” I thought. It was like mothers and fathers campaigning with their grown children – with the same sort of camaraderie you often see in close families.

I also felt the same sense of family when my wife and I campaigned in South Philadelphia before the Pennsylvania primary. We were on a door-to-door team with a young woman in her twenties, and we were driven around by a jolly Irishman who talked about his grandchildren. Again, a multi-generational commitment was heartening to see.

My senior-citizen soul brother and prep-school classmate, Nick Kotz, campaigned tirelessly for Obama in Northern Virginia before the election – he hasn’t worked so hard in years.

But many of our senior friends weren’t ready to give up power. They wanted to hold on to the past, like McCain did. They said they valued experience, which, when translated, meant “seniority.”

Well, I'm proud of all of us old farts who campaigned for Obama because we were smart enough to recognize that it was time to turn the country over to our much smarter, better educated children. We realized we haven’t done so well.

Posted by Charles Warner at 7:32 PM | Comments (1) | Print |

somalley at November 13, 2008 12:18 AM writes:

---

November 6, 2008

A Night of Tears

My wife, Julia, and I have supported Barack Obama since March of 2007. We have maxed out in contributions, passed out buttons, worn Obama 08 baseball caps, campaigned door to door, and put signs in our windows. So at 10:30 p.m. Tuesday night, we came home after visiting friends.

We turned on TV and it looked good for our candidate as the countdown to 11:00 p.m. EST began. We knew the polls would be closed on the West Coast and that a winner would be announced any minute. I was prepared for what would happen in the election, but was unprepared for my own reaction. A few moments after 11:00 p.m. MSNBC projected the winner, and I began to weep uncontrollably. I can’t remember ever crying so hard.

I called one of my best friends and was barely able to mutter through the tears, “We did it. America did it. I’m so proud of my country and so grateful that I lived long enough to see this election.” The MSNC cameras swept the ecstatic crowd in Grant Park in Chicago – young people of all colors were jumping and yelling, but older people were subdued, calm … and weeping.

I started to dry up, but as the camera stopped panning and slowly zoomed in on Jesse Jackson standing tall in the crowd silently weeping, I welled up and Old Faithful erupted again. Jesse Jackson wasn’t smiling, he wasn’t jumping with joy; he was just crying. The camera panned to Oprah. Her head was tilted to one side, resting on her arm. She was crying, too. Old Faithful erupted again.

The valiant civil rights hero, Congressman John Lewis, was interviewed. When he was asked how he felt when he heard Obama was proclaimed the winner, he said, “I wept.” A story on the front page of the New York Times Web site told of a young white man in Pennsylvania who said that he wept when he heard the news of Obama’s election.

Why was so many people’s response to this joyous news to cry? Certainly not sadness. Were they tears of joy? Perhaps. I think the tears were a release of multiple and unspoken emotions that were unique to each person who wept. We can never know the depth of emotion of Jesse Jackson, who kneeled over the dead body of Martin Luther King in Memphis. And we probably can’t define our own emotions – too complex, too much history, too much gratitude, too much of a release, and too much hope finally fulfilled.

As I watched John McCain’s gracious concession speech, there was weeping in his crowd, too, and rightfully so. He was a courageous warrior and deserved some tears.

As I watched MSNBC, I’m convinced I saw Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews well up. If professional TV personalities and anchors can’t suck it up, then no one can, -- and few could on election night. It was a night of tears that will hopefully wash away our sins of racism and float in an era of equality … and they did at least for one wet night.

Posted by Charles Warner at 12:02 AM | Comments (1) | Print |

KMashek at November 6, 2008 1:31 PM writes:

---

November 2, 2008

Country First?

Guest blogger Michael Weiskopf writes:

Watching John Kerry on "Meet the Press" this morning helped to crystallize some thoughts.

Many politicians have had their moment. For Kerry it was the decision to run a timid, centrist campaign four years ago rather than try to energize a base that had come to feel disenfranchised. There was a bold moment in the Kerry campaign and that was when he reached out to John McCain and attempted to persuade him to be his running mate. It is likely that with McCain on the ticket that Kerry would have won and McCain would now be Veep. And, it would have been good for the country and the world at a time of international crises with national security the top concern, we would have had two statesmen that were putting party loyalties aside in order to restore some kind of competence to government. But McCain couldn't bring himself to put "Country First." His personal ambition trumped his sense of duty.

The same can be said about Hillary Clinton. Had she stepped out in 2004 and taken the risk to run against W, then she likely would have won the nomination. Had she done it then, even if unable to beat Bush, she would have earned the right to run again in 2008 and likely would not have faced a serious challenge from Obama or any other candidate this year. She would have been seen as putting the country's well being above her personal ambition. But Hillary too played it safe, preferring to run against an outgoing two-term president and believing that the nomination and the presidency was hers for the taking.

It's pretty easy to make the case that the country and the world would be in better shape if either Kerry or Clinton had won in 2004 or if either had run a principled campaign that galvanized opposition and energized the rudderless Democrats in Congress.

So Obama stepped out with a combination of the courage that Eugene McCarthy showed along with the charisma and energy that Bobby Kennedy showed, and the contrast to Kerry and Clinton is striking. Obama was a young senator with a promising future and he could have played by the rules and waited his turn. Instead he took the risk and jumped the line, knowing that if he lost, any personal, national ambitions he may have harbored would be set back for years if not permanently. He took the risk and ran a different kind of campaign. He took the risk and energized a base of young voters and disenfranchised minorities and in the process truly put "Country First."

Anything is possible, which includes the reality that McCain can still win, that not enough registered voters will turn out on Tuesday, and that the election will be stolen. But what is more likely is that we will see a president elect that has done more to earn the office than any candidate since Lincoln.

Posted by Charles Warner at 7:25 PM | Comments (0) | Print |