Thanks for explaining this so well, Matt. I remember feeling so hopeful when Soon-Shiong bought the paper. It turns out he was just a nasty villain who removed his mask and showed us who he really is. Feels like the LA Times may be nearing its final phase. But what do I know? I am still subscribing, but I now rely equally on independent journalists, including LA Taco, for news reporting. Sterling & I remain ever supportive of the LA Times journalists. We stay for them and only them. Nostalgic for the old days and the old building too. Sigh.
Regarding subscription structures, one I haven't seen discussed is a two-tier subscription system.
Free local papers are (barely?) able to cover costs with advertisements. The Santa Monica Daily Press is one example.
So you could potentially have a two-tier subscription (with two sections for hard-copy and websites):
-Tier 1: Free content would be in one section: local news, comics, puzzles, and blurbs of premium content. This would establish a relationship between the reader and the paper, and the popular free content could (!) stimulate interest in the paid content.
-Tier 2: Paid content with premium 'hard news' and 'soft news' coverage in the second section. National/international news, sports, entertainment.
Subscribers get 'deliveries' (digital and/or hard copy) based on their tier.
Another idea: A few years back I sent an email to Sewell Chan about designing a smartphone friendly subscription system, using a homepage with content modules (National, international, sports, entertainment, podcasts, puzzles, etc). The subscribed modules are animated, and the unsubscribed modules are grayed-out (Of course, the best value would be a bundle of all modules). It would encourage interaction throughout the day: Read news while commuting to work, podcast at lunch, puzzles on the way home, etc)
Have either of these approaches been tried anywhere? In both cases, my contention is that people will pay to be 'in the know'; crucially, hard news must be like an OSINT briefing, without engagement manipulation ('storytelling', 'balance')
I thought I heard them mention the Green Bay Packers, which is some sort of community ownership. I wondered if that’s what he may mean when he says “public ownership”, rather than traditional going public. I could be way off since I don’t know much about the Packers structure, but I could see him thinking community ownership is a brilliant way to make sure “all sides” get to be heard. I think it would result in the same outcome as your darker scenario-who do you think would buy in; surely not us locals who know the current state of the paper.
I mean there are all sorts of publicly traded companies whose operations the average investor has no real say over; just look at your 401k account. More widely spread ownership is not the same thing as distributed control. PSS could easily retain majority control after going public in some form or another.
Yes, agreed. I expect he would retain actual control. But my bet is It (“community ownership”) would be presented as a great democratization, and in our current environment, too many people would uncritically accept the premise. Jon Stewart surprisingly did.
Indeed. I mean him going for the “of the people” vibes of that model, as vibes seem to be all that matter in certain circles, not actual financial sense or ownership control. I think I need an “I’m exasperated by the owner” font.
Given the rise of internet and the collapse of advertising models, I wonder what decisions could have been made over the last two decades by LAT owners and management that would have left the paper in a more secure position by 2025. And could the paper have learned more lessons from the "New York Times" and its adaption to digital?
The abject failure to create a culture around the online comments section, with a trust metric to hide trolling, left the Times on the outside of the community's conversation and also silenced Angelenos who could have built a reputation as trusted civic advocates on that platform. The 2011 experiment with Facebook logins showed that those in charge were oblivious to the value of controlling their own digital platform.
Thanks for explaining this so well, Matt. I remember feeling so hopeful when Soon-Shiong bought the paper. It turns out he was just a nasty villain who removed his mask and showed us who he really is. Feels like the LA Times may be nearing its final phase. But what do I know? I am still subscribing, but I now rely equally on independent journalists, including LA Taco, for news reporting. Sterling & I remain ever supportive of the LA Times journalists. We stay for them and only them. Nostalgic for the old days and the old building too. Sigh.
I think we all are, Randy. Tough times.
Regarding subscription structures, one I haven't seen discussed is a two-tier subscription system.
Free local papers are (barely?) able to cover costs with advertisements. The Santa Monica Daily Press is one example.
So you could potentially have a two-tier subscription (with two sections for hard-copy and websites):
-Tier 1: Free content would be in one section: local news, comics, puzzles, and blurbs of premium content. This would establish a relationship between the reader and the paper, and the popular free content could (!) stimulate interest in the paid content.
-Tier 2: Paid content with premium 'hard news' and 'soft news' coverage in the second section. National/international news, sports, entertainment.
Subscribers get 'deliveries' (digital and/or hard copy) based on their tier.
Another idea: A few years back I sent an email to Sewell Chan about designing a smartphone friendly subscription system, using a homepage with content modules (National, international, sports, entertainment, podcasts, puzzles, etc). The subscribed modules are animated, and the unsubscribed modules are grayed-out (Of course, the best value would be a bundle of all modules). It would encourage interaction throughout the day: Read news while commuting to work, podcast at lunch, puzzles on the way home, etc)
Have either of these approaches been tried anywhere? In both cases, my contention is that people will pay to be 'in the know'; crucially, hard news must be like an OSINT briefing, without engagement manipulation ('storytelling', 'balance')
Thanks for reading!
I thought I heard them mention the Green Bay Packers, which is some sort of community ownership. I wondered if that’s what he may mean when he says “public ownership”, rather than traditional going public. I could be way off since I don’t know much about the Packers structure, but I could see him thinking community ownership is a brilliant way to make sure “all sides” get to be heard. I think it would result in the same outcome as your darker scenario-who do you think would buy in; surely not us locals who know the current state of the paper.
I mean there are all sorts of publicly traded companies whose operations the average investor has no real say over; just look at your 401k account. More widely spread ownership is not the same thing as distributed control. PSS could easily retain majority control after going public in some form or another.
Yes, agreed. I expect he would retain actual control. But my bet is It (“community ownership”) would be presented as a great democratization, and in our current environment, too many people would uncritically accept the premise. Jon Stewart surprisingly did.
The Packers, like all NFL teams, have lavish streams of guaranteed revenue.
Indeed. I mean him going for the “of the people” vibes of that model, as vibes seem to be all that matter in certain circles, not actual financial sense or ownership control. I think I need an “I’m exasperated by the owner” font.
Given the rise of internet and the collapse of advertising models, I wonder what decisions could have been made over the last two decades by LAT owners and management that would have left the paper in a more secure position by 2025. And could the paper have learned more lessons from the "New York Times" and its adaption to digital?
The abject failure to create a culture around the online comments section, with a trust metric to hide trolling, left the Times on the outside of the community's conversation and also silenced Angelenos who could have built a reputation as trusted civic advocates on that platform. The 2011 experiment with Facebook logins showed that those in charge were oblivious to the value of controlling their own digital platform.