Slog
News & ArtsMonday, January 4, 2010
Media How a San Francisco Alt-Weekly War Could End in Seized Assets Here (and There, and Everywhere)
Posted by Eli Sanders on Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 7:10 PM
It's a bit complicated to explain how the corporate-controlled SF Weekly came to owe the independently-owned San Francisco Bay Guardian more than $20 million.
But the short of it is that in 2008, a San Francisco jury declared that the SF Weekly—and by extension its owner, Village Voice Media (VVM), which also owns the Seattle Weekly—had engaged in predatory pricing.
Essentially, the SF Weekly was found to have kept its ad rates artificially low in an effort to force the Bay Guardian out of business.
At present, the SF Weekly owes the Bay Guardian something north of $20 million (with interest accruing at a rate of about $5,000 per day). Its owner, VVM, isn't paying. VVM is also declining to put up a $20 million bond while it appeals the predatory pricing decision. And so the Bay Guardian has been allowed to start seizing some of the SF Weekly's assets: its delivery vehicles, for example, and its rent checks.
A Superior Court commissioner in San Francisco is expected to rule soon—perhaps as soon as tomorrow—on just how far the Bay Guardian can go to get the rest of its $20 million (and counting).
VVM owns 16 alt-weeklies around the country, including the Village Voice and the LA Weekly, and in 2007 the corporation was valued at around $191 million. Can the Bay Guardian reach beyond the available assets of the SF Weekly—likely worth much less than $20 million—in order to collect all of its money?
Tim Redmond, the Bay Guardian's executive editor, told me today that if the Superior Court commissioner gives his paper what it's been asking for, then his publication will end up with “a lien on all of [VVM's] assets, which is basically all the newspapers.”
A list of newspaper that includes, of course, the Seattle Weekly.
Does Redmond see anything of value at the Seattle Weekly offices down on Western Avenue? Anything he'd like to seize?
“Whatever is valuable that would help us collect the money that we’re owed," he said. "If the courts tell us we can go after papers outside of California, we will go wherever we can, wherever we have the legal authority to go, to pursue this debt, absolutely.”
We'll find out soon whether the debt collection leads him here.
(This post went up too late to reach anyone at VVM headquarters, but I'll give them a call tomorrow morning and have sent an e-mail to the Seattle Weekly to see what it makes of the troubles in SF.)
1
Wait, you say "At present, the Bay Guardian owes the SF Weekly something north of $20 million (with interest accruing at a rate of about $5,000 per day). Its owner, New Times, isn't paying..."
Don't you mean "At present, the SF Weekly owes the Bay Guardian something north of $20 million (with interest accruing at a rate of about $5,000 per day). Its owner, New Times, isn't paying..."?
Don't you mean "At present, the SF Weekly owes the Bay Guardian something north of $20 million (with interest accruing at a rate of about $5,000 per day). Its owner, New Times, isn't paying..."?
3
Crazy! I work in the same building as the Seattle Weekly - guess I'll have to keep my eyes peeled for the repo men...
4
$5K/day on $20M is an interest rate above 9 %/year. That's an excellent return! Can I invest in that lien?
5
Can we get some perspective on this? Is the SFBG also a free alt weekly, i.e. equivalent to the stranger? Or is SFBG the seattle times equivalent in SF? Thanks.
8
@6
Thanks Eli.
So what are the implications for the stranger, if any? Were similar shinanigans going on in seattle? You going to sue? I always felt the 2 free papers in seattle are distinct and complementary, not really competing.
Thanks Eli.
So what are the implications for the stranger, if any? Were similar shinanigans going on in seattle? You going to sue? I always felt the 2 free papers in seattle are distinct and complementary, not really competing.
9
If memory serves, it was New Times/Village Voice that gutted OC Weekly (Orange County, California) when they gained control, and chased away or killed everything/everybody who made the paper gutsy, fun, and different, including investigative reporters who brought down a corrupt Huntington Beach mayor and a corrupt Orange County sheriff--while the LA Times and the Orange County Register did fuck-all.
Any finger in the eye to Village Voice/New Times is okay by me. They have strayed very far from their roots.
Any finger in the eye to Village Voice/New Times is okay by me. They have strayed very far from their roots.
10
Oh yeah, and the pre-VV OC Weekly endlessly mocked congress-critters such as Chris Cox (most recently a worthless SEC Chairman), Dana Rohrabacher, Robert "B-1 Bob" Dornan, and Randall "Duke" Cunningham, who were eminently mockworthy.
11
@8 The only thing that complements The Seattle Weekly is a fish carcass or a steaming pile of dog crap.
12
@9, Funny you say that, for that is precisely what happened to the Seattle Weekly when the New Times/VVM running dogs sliced it apart in '05-'06. Now its run by Mr. Milquetoast, and an unimaginative frat boy. The whole corporation is clearly very 'format' based, conservative, & bottom-line focused.
So much for the upstart 'New Times' founded in the clear-eyed optimism of 1970. Now completely co-opted by $$$ and hamstermen.
So much for the upstart 'New Times' founded in the clear-eyed optimism of 1970. Now completely co-opted by $$$ and hamstermen.
15
Even before SW was acquired by the corporate monstrosity, I never found it interesting. I never understood it's existence. The writers were obviously writing to a certain group/market share, and that market share was definitely not me. Problem was, I could never figure out just *who* they _were_ writing to. Any help? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
16
I beg to differ about the quality of the SW in recent years-- the Weekly post-New Times really hasn't been that bad of a paper. At least the cover stories and cover headlines these days get my attention at the newsstands, which they never did back when the Beard from Bainbridge was running the operation. And the Weekly seems to have recovered from that period when their average paper issue was thinner than a crepe, during a time when the Stranger was a stack of pancakes comparison.
17
"Essentially, the SF Weekly was found to have kept its ad rates artificially low in an effort to force the Bay Guardian out of business. "
Isn't that the Stranger's tactic in Seattle?
Isn't that the Stranger's tactic in Seattle?
20
@8 I always felt the 2 free papers in seattle are distinct and complementary, not really competing.
Sorry, I don't mean to mock, I just want it on record that I'm chuckling heartily at the moment.
Sorry, I don't mean to mock, I just want it on record that I'm chuckling heartily at the moment.
21
I hope the SF Guardian takes over the Seattle Weekly.
The SF Bay Guardian is a great alternative paper with some serious investigative journalism.
The Seattle Weekly by comparison is a piece of crap, especially after the Village Voice bought it. I noticed it immediately. They don't cover local politics as much anymore and they don't even do endorsements.
The SF Bay Guardian is a great alternative paper with some serious investigative journalism.
The Seattle Weekly by comparison is a piece of crap, especially after the Village Voice bought it. I noticed it immediately. They don't cover local politics as much anymore and they don't even do endorsements.
23
So if you're on the side of the Bay Guardian, doesn't that mean you now have to start making nice with Misha Berson, who spent 11 years there? Consistency is all I ask (give us this day our daily mask).
24
I guess it's my inner right-winger, but "predatory pricing" and
"intentionally sold ads below cost" sounds like rank bullshit to me. How is "cost" determined? If it's market value, then the court is comparing, at least in part, the SF Weekly's pricing to the competitor that they're awarding damages to. Much more importantly, though, why can't a paper price its ads however the hell it wants?
"intentionally sold ads below cost" sounds like rank bullshit to me. How is "cost" determined? If it's market value, then the court is comparing, at least in part, the SF Weekly's pricing to the competitor that they're awarding damages to. Much more importantly, though, why can't a paper price its ads however the hell it wants?
25
I might be biased, but everyone was talking about The Stranger's election coverage last year. Whether you agree with their endorsements or not (I admit I did), they gave the election character that's usually absent from local races, and they articulated their side of the matter in a noticeably creative way. A lot of people probably wouldn't have even thought about last year's local elections, one way or the other, had The Stranger not opened discussion about them.
I don't remember a thing about the Weekly's coverage. But I'm sure they had a nice, measured and carefully phrased opinion that properly reflected Seattle Spunk(TM) while not alienating the VV Board of Directors.
Sorry if I'm too catty. Well, no, I'm not sorry. That would be too Weekly of me.
I don't remember a thing about the Weekly's coverage. But I'm sure they had a nice, measured and carefully phrased opinion that properly reflected Seattle Spunk(TM) while not alienating the VV Board of Directors.
Sorry if I'm too catty. Well, no, I'm not sorry. That would be too Weekly of me.
26
@24, you seem ignorant, very much so, of history, law and economics about monopolies and predatory pricing, which has been illegal here in the USA for one hundred years (federal law) and longer than that even (state law); predatory pricing by a entity which enough market share to drive out competition is not free market conduct, but is monopoly using and monopoly creating conduct, which leads to more monopoly, which is the antithesis (look it up plz.) of free market competition.
Even teddy roosevelt and the GOP groks this but not you. Your position is fringe far right, sort of lunatic, really.
Thanks for listening.
Even teddy roosevelt and the GOP groks this but not you. Your position is fringe far right, sort of lunatic, really.
Thanks for listening.
28
@24
How about this:
It's a price point at which the income generated by the ad revenue would be insufficient to offset cost and keep the business operating...that is without the help of (very large) outside bank accounts (i.e. corporate coffers or rich benefactor).
How about this:
It's a price point at which the income generated by the ad revenue would be insufficient to offset cost and keep the business operating...that is without the help of (very large) outside bank accounts (i.e. corporate coffers or rich benefactor).
30
Ah, the death throes of print media. The fact that they even have delivery vans to repo says a lot about the future viability of that business model.
32
I don't see how a person can simultaneously be a fan of a lefty paper like The Stranger and believe that having fewer local alt media options is a good thing.
The Weekly certainly doesn't have the balls of The Stranger, but it sometimes publishes interesting, intelligent, and original pieces of the sort that you won't find in The Stranger.
The Weekly certainly doesn't have the balls of The Stranger, but it sometimes publishes interesting, intelligent, and original pieces of the sort that you won't find in The Stranger.
33
32 'Interesting, intelligent, and original pieces' is the definition of what you won't find in The Stranger.
34
The Leftwing Press ripping each other to shreds.
It's the kind of spectacle Real Americans would pay to see....
It's the kind of spectacle Real Americans would pay to see....
35
So does this mean there will be fewer media outlets shilling the Godless Heathen Secular Humanist Gospel of Socialism, Abortion and HomoButtFucking?
sweet.
sweet.
36
The Bay Guardian is almost unreadable. It's written and edited by humorless, sanctimonious, far-far-far left twits. They have a couple of hobbyhorses (public power is good! property owners are bad! Green party is good! Democratic party is bad!) that they just flog over. and over. and over. and over. It's the same boring thing every issue, unleavened by any hint of wit or self-awareness.
They have a good food critic in Paul Reidinger. Otherwise, that paper is unredeemed.
I don't like that the SF Weekly has out-of-town owners, and I don't like the commodity-oriented format of the New Times chain, but the SF Weekly has *WAY* better writers and editors than the Bay Guardian, and in the past the paper has managed some very good in-depth local investigative pieces. They did a truly fantastic series on the pollution in Hunter's Point a few years back, for example. Won tons of journalism awards.
So, much as I hate to admit it, the truth is that the local paper is crap and the corporate-owned one is actually pretty decent. So I really hope the Guardian doesn't succeed in bankrupting the SF Weekly with this dubious-sounding lawsuit.
They have a good food critic in Paul Reidinger. Otherwise, that paper is unredeemed.
I don't like that the SF Weekly has out-of-town owners, and I don't like the commodity-oriented format of the New Times chain, but the SF Weekly has *WAY* better writers and editors than the Bay Guardian, and in the past the paper has managed some very good in-depth local investigative pieces. They did a truly fantastic series on the pollution in Hunter's Point a few years back, for example. Won tons of journalism awards.
So, much as I hate to admit it, the truth is that the local paper is crap and the corporate-owned one is actually pretty decent. So I really hope the Guardian doesn't succeed in bankrupting the SF Weekly with this dubious-sounding lawsuit.
37
@17. exactly. many years history of doing such to drive other interesting lefty or culture or music rags outta business.
38
@17 and @37, as a one time co-publisher of another local lefty culture rag, yes, The Stranger was totally guilty of the exact same tactics. It's not so fun when you are a struggling indie paper filling a niche and growing an audience and a massive more established paper offers every single one of your advertisers slashed/artificially low rates. Funny that The Stranger criticizes such action now when they are guilty of it themselves, but I have a feeling their editorial probably doesn't know what their advertising department does. I never realized we could have sued them! It's water under the bridge at this point... and I still dig the Stranger, although hate how ruthless it is towards other publications in town.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Confidential to Conservative Christians: Keep Doubling Down On Hate, Assholes by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Show This Woman Some Love by Dan Savage
-
Dharun Ravi Sentenced to 30 Days by Dan Savage
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Seattle's Forthcoming Waterfront Ferris Wheel by David Schmader
-
NOM's Brian Brown Said I Could Name the Time and the Place by Dan Savage
-
Why KeyArena Won't Work by Goldy
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
SL Letter of the Day: Anti-Gay Sister-In-Law Getting Her Kink On by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Putting It In by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (38) RSS