As the Post-Intelligencer Globe Turns

Hearst's handling of the situation at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer is increasingly bizarre. And that may be too kind a word. Despicable and cruel may be more like it. The company seems completely unable to decide whether to turn the P-I into a revolutionary online-only operation or simply close it entirely. Its indecision is leaving the paper's staff, readers, advertisers and the city of Seattle twisting in the wind.

Let's review the blow-by-blow of the past few weeks—mostly the past few days:

Jan. 9: Hearst announces that it will close the P-I within 60 days if it can't find a buyer. It holds out the thin hope that it might keep it as an online-only publication. Note that 60 days from Jan. 9 means the deadline passed March 10. For the next few weeks, there is virtually no word from Hearst about what's going on.

March 6: With no buyers to be found, unsurprisingly, word leaks out that Hearst is making "provisional offers" to a small group of staffers (reportedly 22) who would be kept on—at reduced salaries—to run an online edition. There's hope—but staffers are told that no formal decision has been made. Terms of the offers are said to be inferior to current pay and benefits. Rumor is that if not enough selected staffers sign up for the online-only plan, the whole operation will be shuttered. Unfortunately, one key personnel asset—ace Microsoft reporter/blogger Joseph Tartakoff—reportedly already has decided to leave. Hearst is mum about its plans. (More than one commentator has flatly reported that Hearst formally announced its online-only intentions. Um, nope.)

March 9: The P-I invites employees to its rooftop for one last visit to its landmark illuminated, spinning globe. This can't be a good sign. Hearst won't discuss its plans.

March 10: Staffers learn that boxes and cleanup bins are to be delivered to the newsroom next week, apparently so they can pack up the paper's detritus for closing. Again, not a good sign. Says a company spokesman: "We're still evaluating our options. ... Timing of the decision is uncertain." (Yeah, but there are certain telltale indicators!) On the plus side, the company renews the SeattlePI.com Web domain name—but it was going to expire March 25, and in any outcome, the company would want to protect its trademark.

March 11: P-I Editor and Publisher Roger Oglesby tells a reporter for his own paper that "Hearst expects to announce a decision regarding the P-I at some point next week." He declines further comment.

And there we stand.

What's taking so long?

Just how hard is it for Hearst to make a decision on this and to tell its own employees what's going on?

The company has had 60 days to decide what to do in Seattle, and you know it mulled it over for many months before that. The online-only plan would be a noble, groundbreaking experiment that seems obvious in a tech-savvy city like Seattle, but Hearst seems to be having enormous problems pulling the trigger. Maybe, to give the company the benefit of the doubt, there are union or Joint Operating Agreement (with the Seattle Times) wrinkles to iron out before going forward. That's reasonable. But Hearst isn't saying. It's not being the least bit transparent in its decision-making.

And so, the poor employees of the P-I—and its readers and advertisers—have no idea what's going on. If Hearst intended to scare off potential holdover staffers for the online-only edition as a way to scuttle it before it even starts, the company is doing a great job. It's hard to believe anybody would trust the company after this mysterious chain of events.

It's this sort of indecision and inability to innovate or think boldly that's crippling the entire newspaper business. Hearst has a chance to do something cutting-edge in Seattle, but it's poisoning the well there. Maybe it can pull off a last-minute plan to salvage the Post-Intelligencer as a breakthrough online-only product. But given the level of ineptitude shown so far, I sure wouldn't bet on it.

And a message to employees at Hearst's San Francisco Chronicle, which is facing its own death sentence: Run for your lives. Do you really want to be left hanging like your colleagues in Seattle by management that can't get out of its own way and make a coherent decision about your future? I worked for Hearst a couple decades ago. I know how incredibly ossified and stupid the newspaper division's management was then. Clearly it hasn't gotten any better. There's no excuse for what's happening in Seattle.

Comments

[albert]

How much do you think it would cost for an outside buyer to purchase just the website, brand name and archives of the PI?

[kip]

I don't fault Hearst at all for taking their time on how to proceed in what has to be a very difficult decision. The PI has been publishing for 146 years, and if it takes a few extra weeks to get everything in place for the most graceful exit possible, then so be it. The PI staffers know what's coming, ok they mey not know when to the day, but would that make the news any easier to take? Better to get it right, and shutting down the PI, which has struggled since before the JOA was reached, while sad, is necessary, I'm afraid. This isn't a stupid decision.

[Glenn Fleishman]

"who would be kept on—at reduced salaries—to run an online edition"

Even worse: Some of the reporters who spoke about the interviews said they would have to sign away severance benefits, give up accrued vacations, and lose other key benefits offered to those being fired.

And they were asked to make this commitment before any plans were settled or announced.

For some long-time employees, severance, vacation cash-out, union-mandated fees, and COBRA health might be enough to give them a transition into another job (in another field, I imagine), freelance work, or retirement.

It's a pretty cruel offer.

[Mark Potts]

Albert:
Good question, and I have no idea how to begin to calculate the cost of the assets minus the newspaper. It gets into arcane accounting areas like goodwill, intellectual property, brand equity, etc. I suspect Hearst would love to see an offer. There was news today that somebody is bidding one the remains of the Rocky Mountain News; if that deal goes through, it might give us some basis for a calculation. I'm sure it's in the millions of dollars.