Zell: Spending $8 billion to buy newspapers “a mistake”

posted at 11:34 am on April 16, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Two years ago, Sam Zell took Tribune Company private, leveraging the $8.2 billion necessary to buy out the stockholders.  Since then, the economy has tanked, and newspapers got hit by the double-whammy of the recession and an obsolete business model, neither of which Zell apparently saw coming.  Now that Tribune’s declared bankruptcy, Zell allows that he made a “mistake” (via Romanesko, graphic by Media Bistro):

Tribune Co. Chairman and Chief Executive Sam Zell told Bloomberg Television today that his heavily leveraged 2007 acquisition of the Chicago Tribune parent was “a mistake” in that he did not anticipate the steep decline in the newspaper business.

“By definition, if you bought something and it’s now worth a great deal less, you made a mistake and I’m more than willing to say I made a mistake,” Zell said. “I was too optimistic in terms of the newspaper’s ability to preserve its position.”

Zell, who took Tribune Co. private in a leveraged $8.2 billion deal, reiterated that his goal is to emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings begun in December to manage its $13 billion in debt with its assets intact. But the billionaire investor also said the company is looking at “all options.”

Zell has since learned that the business model for newspapers doesn’t fit in the digital age.  Most of us knew that looking at the industry from the outside in 2007, when Zell bought out the shareholders.  Zell wasn’t the only one miscalculating that year, though; McClatchy bought the Minneapolis Star-Tribune in 1998 for $1.2 billion and sold it for less than $600 million just days before 2007 began to Avista Capital Partners, who declared the paper bankrupt in January of this year, right after Tribune’s bankruptcy.

Sometimes the money isn’t smart enough to see the writing on the wall, but Jack Shafer reminds us that newspaper owners haven’t always put monetary profit as their primary motive.  Many owners didn’t mind losing money as long as they got to wield political and cultural influence.  Unfortunately, when corporations bought newspapers, and when newspapers bought other newspapers to become corporations (such as with the New York Times and Boston Globe), profit became a much bigger motive — just when the business model ran out of gas.

Shafer points out another interesting pattern in newspaper failures, one I haven’t seen much reported:

The enduring—and unintentional—lesson of the Villard piece is that a little newspaper death is a good thing. For example, the newspapers at greatest risk in recent decades have been the weakling titles kept on life support by joint-operating agreements. These agreements permitted rival newspapers to skirt antitrust laws and behave like partners instead of competitors, as Daniel Gross explained in a 2003 Slate piece. In the usual progress of a joint-operating agreement, two newspapers suck up the monopoly profits until the weaker one is finally allowed to die. In the last decade, the Post-Intelligencer, the Rocky Mountain News, the Albuquerque Tribune, the Cincinnati Post, and the Birmingham Post-Herald have all suffered this fate.

The tragedy of the joint-operating agreements is that instead of making the stronger paper stronger, the arrangement tends to weaken it. Freed for almost a decade from the long-running joint-operating relationship it had with the San Francisco Examiner, the once-stronger San Francisco Chronicle is in such terrible shape that it has threatened to snuff itself unless it wins concessions from its workers. Had the Chronicle and the Examiner been forced to compete on the business side in 1965 instead of to collaborate, a clear victor would have a fighting chance at surviving in today’s environment.

Perhaps.  However, in our market, that hasn’t been the case.  The Strib has had a competitive relationship with the Pioneer Press at all times, and the competition hasn’t done it much good.  Before the Internet, that may have been true, but I think all newspapers now face the same business pressures regardless of whether competition exists to keep them in fighting trim.  Zell and his colleagues will have to find a business model that works — and I’m going to guess that it will not rely on costly presses, ink, paper, and manual delivery.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Shocking.

hawksruleva on April 16, 2009 at 11:38 AM

DUH.
Obviously having lots of $$ doesn’t mean you are necessarily smart.

Badger40 on April 16, 2009 at 11:40 AM

Aren’t local TV stations doing the work of local newspapers? What’s the big deal?

faraway on April 16, 2009 at 11:40 AM

Zell – master of understatement.

Vashta.Nerada on April 16, 2009 at 11:43 AM

Back at the old fish market, we’d use newspapers dipped in salt water to help keep the lobsters alive and kickin during their shipment to various death camps — ahem, restaurants.

That’s the only good thing they are for.

blatantblue on April 16, 2009 at 11:45 AM

Imagine, investing in something and actually having it worth less, and not asking to be bailed out.
Businesses fail, and new ones built…it happens and sorry, but that is the life of an investor.
Kind of like the people who “invested” in Obama…he is worth a lot less now. No matter how many times the MSM bail him out, he is a loser.
This is an “assessment, not an accusation”.

right2bright on April 16, 2009 at 11:45 AM

8 Billion dollar Bird Cage liner & Frozen Fish wrap.

portlandon on April 16, 2009 at 11:47 AM

” Many owners didn’t mind losing money as long as they got to wield political and cultural influence……………

Zell and his colleagues will have to find a business model that works………”

Try printing the truth and see how that effects business……..

………… you can start with the history of the Community Reinvestment Act, who pushed it on us, and how it has effected our economy.

That might sell a paper or two…….

Seven Percent Solution on April 16, 2009 at 11:47 AM

I have 25,000 IBM Selectric typewriters for sale. Great investment opportunity.

faraway on April 16, 2009 at 11:47 AM

Oh yeah, I can make a really neat pirate hat out of newspaper. The kids love them.

Muchas Gracias Senior Zell!

portlandon on April 16, 2009 at 11:48 AM

How’s that sale going for the Chicago Cubbies, Sam?

You really know how to pick the losers. Sucks to be you.

Knucklehead on April 16, 2009 at 11:49 AM

Hmm. It’s odd, but while I see the death of newspapers around the country, it isn’t happening here in Utah. Why not? We, though much smaller than most markets, have two papers that survive, and indeed one of them is increasing profits and circulation. The other is in no danger of dying. Why are we bucking the trend?

Vanceone on April 16, 2009 at 11:49 AM

Oh yeah, I can make a really neat pirate hat out of newspaper. The kids love them.

Muchas Gracias Senior Zell!

portlandon on April 16, 2009 at 11:48 AM

Or, if you took the time, just massive and insane spitballs

blatantblue on April 16, 2009 at 11:50 AM

Liberal Newspaper bias only started within the last two years.

How was Zell to know?

Barrack on April 16, 2009 at 11:51 AM

I can’t read “Ya think?” without putting “DiNozzo” after it.

BigD on April 16, 2009 at 11:51 AM

My wife uses the newspaper for paper mache in the classroom. Kids love paper mache.

Think of the children!

portlandon on April 16, 2009 at 11:52 AM

That another newspaper biting the dust is not news is sorta news itself. In a way.

Akzed on April 16, 2009 at 11:54 AM

The really great news is:

Rich liberals are going broke buying newspaper businesses.

faraway on April 16, 2009 at 11:55 AM

I don’t think it was just “digital” that killed the newspaper star. I think leaning over to the Left so much punctured something vital – like their readership.

kybowexar on April 16, 2009 at 11:55 AM

spitballs

blatantblue on April 16, 2009 at 11:50 AM

Ahh they do make the most wonderful spitballs.
The ceiling of my 1st year classroom had quite a few.
The kids wouldn’t dare spit them at me. So they spit them at the ceiling.
Honestly never noticed til half way through the year!

Badger40 on April 16, 2009 at 11:55 AM

That might sell a paper or two…….

Seven Percent Solution on April 16, 2009 at 11:47 AM

Which is why CNN, MSNBC etc… have no viewership worth a damn.
Will they ever get a clue?

Badger40 on April 16, 2009 at 11:57 AM

Badger40 on April 16, 2009 at 11:55 AM

LOL
Teacher?

We used to take paper towels, soak em in the bathroom sink, and lob em real hard on the ceiling over the stalls when someone was in it. drip drip

:x

blatantblue on April 16, 2009 at 11:57 AM

Cleaning their editorial house, reporting fairly, and getting out of bed with the Left would actually improve the bottom line. They’ll ride that horse till it’s dead, and that makes me so so happy.

marklmail on April 16, 2009 at 11:57 AM

Many owners didn’t mind losing money as long as they got to wield political and cultural influence.

Like owning a sports franchise in many cases….

BTW, I may be crying for the poor corrupt media on the outside, but inside I’m laughing my fat arse off!

As you sow, so shall you reap and the grim reaper is banging on lots of newspaper building doors.

TheBigOldDog on April 16, 2009 at 12:00 PM

Cleaning their editorial house, reporting fairly, and getting out of bed with the Left would actually improve the bottom line.
marklmail on April 16, 2009 at 11:57 AM

Hey, Blago tried to clean up that editorial board.
Credit where credit is due.

Knucklehead on April 16, 2009 at 12:02 PM

Zell zigged when he should have zagged.

albill on April 16, 2009 at 12:02 PM

You just KNOW some accountant will turn those lost billions into ‘campaign contribution’ deductions.
/.

CaveatEmpty on April 16, 2009 at 12:06 PM

Cancelled my Tribune subscription October 22, 2008 – the day they endorsed Obama. The founding newspaper of the Republican Party, which had never endorsed a Democrat since before Lincoln, has been reduced to running a series of investigative articles about where Michelle and Barack went on dates. Their front page is now almost wordless, just a picture and a throw away headline. It’s sad. Reading the Tribune was a daily part of my life for 30 years. I was also a shareholder. Zell killed the paper as much as the shift in editorial policy and changing technology did. He way overleveraged and cash flow could not sustain the debt burden. Sam screwed up big time.

Ted Torgerson on April 16, 2009 at 12:09 PM

Spending $8 billion to buy newspapers “a mistake”

You think?

Actually, his mistake was buying the papers and not removing the editorial staffs – Rupert Murdoch has demonstrated that there is actually a market for news directed at the 47% of the population who didn’t vote for Obama, something other media companies have appeared to have forgotten.

Realist on April 16, 2009 at 12:12 PM

My wife uses the newspaper for paper mache in the classroom. Kids love paper mache.

Think of the children!

portlandon on April 16, 2009 at 11:52 AM

They’re also useful to protect the floor when painting the wall, and for wrapping up fragile Christmas (oops, winter solstice holiday) decorations for summer storage.

Steve Z on April 16, 2009 at 12:25 PM

All being said…wouldn’t you like to be able to afford to make a $8 billion mistake? (as a private citizen)
This is discounting the trillion dollar mistake of Obama, but it isn’t his money.

right2bright on April 16, 2009 at 12:26 PM

woohooo technology!

and 50 years from now lord knows what the hell things like news and media will look like.

now if only there were more DARPA grants for networking applications…that woulda made a great stimulus. it could hasten the transition to 21st century data transfer (and thus news and all other media)…and kill off the stuffy old papers y’all hate in even less time!

ernesto on April 16, 2009 at 12:30 PM

blatantblue on April 16, 2009 at 11:57 AM

Now I’m gonna be paranoid about using the bathroom! LOL!

and 50 years from now lord knows what the hell things like news and media will look like.

ernesto on April 16, 2009 at 12:30 PM

The Ministry of Truth will require all citizens to be equipped with data chips in their brains so as to receive a constant stream of NewsSpeak.

Badger40 on April 16, 2009 at 12:33 PM

Rupert Murdoch has demonstrated that there is actually a market for news directed at the 47% of the population who didn’t vote for Obama, something other media companies have appeared to have forgotten.

Realist on April 16, 2009 at 12:12 PM

So Rupert Murdoch has those 47% to himself, while other media companies struggle to compete for the other 53%.

If another media company were to change its editorial staff to compete with Murdoch for those 47%, it would probably increase its market share and profits.

Not only that, there might be more than 50% who don’t vote for Obama next time. Maybe that’s why they don’t “change”. Why compete for conservative readers when the Government will silence conservative writers?

Steve Z on April 16, 2009 at 12:34 PM

Why compete for conservative readers when the Government will silence conservative writers?

Steve Z on April 16, 2009 at 12:34 PM

It’s coming to a neighborhood near you.
Ham radio operators will be all that’s left to spread the truth.

Badger40 on April 16, 2009 at 12:35 PM

All being said…wouldn’t you like to be able to afford to make a $8 billion mistake? (as a private citizen)
This is discounting the trillion dollar mistake of Obama, but it isn’t his money.

right2bright on April 16, 2009 at 12:26 PM

Reminds me of a lady at the Tea Party holding a sign, with dollar bills dangling from it:

WHILE YOU’RE AT IT, PRINT A TRILLION FOR ME!

Steve Z on April 16, 2009 at 12:36 PM

BTW-totally unrelated-
Concealed weapons permit tests here in ND are a 10 question test-open book- with no firing test required.
Local law enforcement says they heard through the law enforcement grapevine that one of these days you will be required to have one in order to buy ammo.
Hmmmmm…..

Badger40 on April 16, 2009 at 12:37 PM

wouldn’t you like to be able to afford to make a $8 billion mistake? (as a private citizen)

right2bright on April 16, 2009 at 12:26 PM

I can’t hardly stomach my own $$ mistakes, as paltry as they are.
It just makes me sick to hear crap like this.

Badger40 on April 16, 2009 at 12:38 PM

Newspapers used to be good for lining litter boxes until the cats got smart. Now even they won’t urinate on them. When the lies become so obvious that they become a propaganda tool, time to find another source for the truth.

volsense on April 16, 2009 at 12:41 PM

What does he mean it was a mistake? You mean old print media is losing money, who would have ever saw that coming….uh everyone.

Dr Evil on April 16, 2009 at 12:50 PM

The problem for newspapers is that they were run as monopolies, and they were in a given area.

What’s killed them is that with the Internet they’re no longer monopolies. I can get the wire reports from the Strib, or from the WaPo. The only reason to go to the Strib is for Mpls news, and until very recently they’ve done a remarkably bad and biased job on the local stuff.

Newspapers will survive based on local reporting, with national and international articles coming from a pooled source. There’s almost no incremental value in having a Mpls reporter in DC vs. a pool reporter.

And the problem with local reporting is that most local reporting is biased and has driven away a significant part of the potential subscribers. I know you’d never get me to buy a Strib again.

nerdbert on April 16, 2009 at 12:54 PM

Don’t knock old Sam too much. He cleaned out the liberal pantywaists running that old rag. Some are left, but I heard he structured the debt such that he’s the first paid and the employees get left holding the biggest bag of stuff.

BTW, Zell reads Krauthammer.

JAW on April 16, 2009 at 1:10 PM

He should have had an investigative reporter check out the paper before buying it. I just forgot. The reporters are too busy blogging.

I am glad to see them flat broke. That is mark to market in reality. It is wortheless and it has no liguid value.

seven on April 16, 2009 at 1:26 PM

DUH.
Obviously having lots of $$ doesn’t mean you are necessarily smart.

Badger40 on April 16, 2009 at 11:40 AM

Yeah like Soros. May be smart financially, but he is destroying the country.

Christian Conservative on April 16, 2009 at 2:04 PM

Rupert Murdoch has demonstrated that there is actually a market for news directed at the 47% of the population who didn’t vote for Obama

Fox News Channel is a great newspaper, isn’t it?

Murdoch’s conservative newspaper, the New York Post, has been losing tons of money for years.

He just bought the Wall Street Journal a couple of years ago, but he probably overpaid.

YYZ on April 16, 2009 at 2:05 PM

The other day it seemed I surprised an individual, based on the sheepish look on his face, who was taking (at least) a couple of papers out of a newspaper vending machine. The gentleman at the hotel desk joked that the delivery man now only left two or three papers per day because any more would just get stolen.

I thought how ironic it was that an industry dependant for so long on a customer’s honesty and integrity was now so utterly incapable of returning the favor in kind.

The death of the newspaper should come as a surprise to no one.

pain train on April 16, 2009 at 2:10 PM

People know that the Times is the principal rag in Los Angeles, but the Daily News really isn’t any better. No great loss if they both go under.

corona on April 16, 2009 at 2:38 PM

I heard that the new business model being pushed to save the MSM is micro-payments. The paper will be on the internet and all the headlines will be there for free, but if you want to read a specific article or column you will have to pay, say, 5 cents. If millions of people have an on-line account and spend 25 cents a day or so, it will more than make up for the much fewer number of people who have stopped buying the physical paper. This idea appears to be the new great hope of what’s left of the MSM.

Fred 2 on April 16, 2009 at 2:45 PM

If newspaper subscriptions were at the level they were at a few decades ago, would they be able to cover all their costs?

IIRC, subscriptions never fully covered the cost of the paper. It’s the revenue from the classified advertising that has provided the majority of the funding and profit for newspapers. Thanks to internet advertising allowing people much more flexibility in how to advertise, who to advertise to and how much to spend on that advertising, it’s unlikely that, even with improved subscriptions, the classified revenue will return.

Just as trains gave way to planes, the majority of print newspapers will die or convert to online papers….unless there is an enterprising person out there that comes up with a sustainable business model.

JadeNYU on April 16, 2009 at 4:41 PM

We of Chicago view Sam Zell as being a certified assclown idiot.

Nothing more.

Nothing less.

pilamaye on April 16, 2009 at 5:32 PM

Maybe it wouldn’t have been a mistake or he would have lost less money if he had changed them so people would want to subscribe to them again. But, alas, that fact seems to escape leftards.

Blake on April 16, 2009 at 5:39 PM

He did not realize that any liberal medium is not fully kosher. He could have been better off if he had challenged the MSM and created a culture change in the print medium.

OneConservative on April 16, 2009 at 8:43 PM

Zell has since learned that the business model for newspapers doesn’t fit in the digital age

The problem is that large, national newpapers do not print news, they print opinion, and just a few news articles that enhance their agenda. They take selected ads from companies that do not cross their agenda, and do not freely report any news that might upset (interfere with the money flow) from those few select advertisers

When the main source of news was print, most newpapers albeit sometimes reluctantly, printed most stories, because the competitors would print the story if they did not

People grabbed the editions that carried the hot news headlines

I buy the local, neighborhood newspaper only because they print some, not all, local crime news, which is not available on the internet and the nickel and dime ads meant for local people only (garage sale, handyman). Local ads in print attract local response and avoid some of the national serial killer sweep service of internet ads. If another local paper came out that printed even more of the local crime news I would switch.

That is not going to happen because local papers, which use the crime news to bait the reader, limit the volume of crime reporting to assuage their local advertisers.

The Internet killed papers, not because it is the best way to get news (which is often abridged, edited to mislead, or buried by Search Engine censorship) but because print papers assumed they no longer had to print all the news to compete

That triggered the self defeating circle as print papers reduced the scope of news reporting and abridged items on the stupid principle people could get the facts elsewhere.

Print papers for a while became ad revenue collectors which lasted until the inverse ratio of their still diminishing news reporting became swamped by the strident propagandizing in their opinion and interest articles, which were the coup de gras

Print medium should not be blamed for the fact the print media ceased to be newspapers

Print was used to lure people to editorials, and now all that is left are editorials and bogus ads.

entagor on April 17, 2009 at 11:12 AM