You and I have never met, but we have corresponded—a bit testily at times (more on that later). In light of last week’s news, I wanted to follow up with another round of correspondence, and this time I’m doing it publicly, via the Columbia Journalism Review. I hope you’ll respond, because I know you are a believer in transparency. If you do, the CJR editors promise they’ll run your remarks. (Update: See Paton’s response below.)
First, I want to make clear that I admire what you’ve tried to do, first at Journal Register Co. and now at the combined Digital First Media, which also operates the MediaNews Group. Many of the Journal Register properties you took over in early 2010 were an unenviable lot for a digital age. Some of them are in economically depressed areas, like New Haven, CT, and most of them lagged far behind the curve in adopting technology or adapting to the convulsive digital environment.
Still, you surrounded yourself with bright people, including two of the smartest editors I know. Emily Bell is one of your advisors; she is also my colleague at Columbia Journalism School, having come here after spearheading the phenomenal growth of the Guardian’s Web properties. And Jim Brady, your editor-in-chief, was editor at WashingtonPost.com while I had that role at WSJ.com; for years he has demonstrated lightning-fast reflexes in understanding reader habits and media’s transforming economic model.
You put a great deal of effort into promulgating digital thinking throughout your newspapers. In your words, “if Print dollars are becoming Digital Dimes, then we better start chasing the Dimes.” You became a popular speaker on the Wherefore Journalism Circuit. And oh, those names your company assigned to its initiatives. First there was the “Ben Franklin Project,” and then the “JRC ideaLab,” and now there “Project Thunderdome.”
But last week you announced that Journal Register was filing for Chapter 11 again. This is the second bankruptcy in just a few years. The first preceded your arrival, and it seems that those in charge didn’t shed enough legacy costs. More distressingly, the new bankruptcy filing indicates that the decline in print ad revenues is speeding up at smaller papers, similar to what beset big metro dailies over the past decade.
The filing has led, predictably, to schadenfreude from those who hope print will turn around someday, and to anger from some current and former employees (one of them called it “horseshit” on Jim Romenesko’s site).
The former was predictable—partly because so many print publishers and journalists seem genetically predisposed against change, and partly because of comments you made that seemed to disparage an entire work force. “Stop listening to newspaper people,” you warned the media world. “As we have done at JRC, put the Digital people in charge—of everything.”
But the employees’ anger and the industry’s shock come from something deeper, I suspect. And here is where I need to air a bit of laundry.
In early 2011, I was working on a report about digital media economics for Columbia. (It would later be published at CJR under the title “The Story So Far.”) At that time, you were promoting your company’s results and getting a lot of headlines for your strategy. Journal Register’s ad performance was “three times better” than the industry’s, you told the trade group INMA. Sounds great, but what were the underlying numbers? Digital revenue in 2010 went from “negligible to 11 percent of ad revenue in November.” Okay, but is that because digital is rising or because print is falling? Or both, and in what proportion?
When we tried to dig deeper, we didn’t get very far. We wanted to know more about Journal Register’s “$41 million profit.” We wanted to learn what base you were using to say that digital revenues were growing by such impressive percentages.