Those of us in the alt-weekly newspaper world have been following–with a mixture of interest, amusement and horror–a trial putting the San Francisco Bay Guardian against S.F. Weekly.
The Cliff’s Notes: The San Francisco Bay Guardian is one of the granddaddies of the alternative press; it’s been around for more than 40 years ago. The S.F. Weekly was founded in the ’80s and has been owned by the New Times chain (now known as Village Voice Media, with headquarters two hours up the road in a little place called Phoenix) since the mid ’90s.
The SFBG claims that New Times/Village Voice has been using its out-of-town profits to support SF Weekly while selling below-cost ads–in an effort to put the Bay Guardian out of business. The New Times/Village Voice folks say that’s a load of crud, that the lower ad prices have been the result of a horrible newspaper-business environment in the Bay Area for years–an environment that’s even jeopardized the future of the dominant area daily, the San Francisco Chronicle.
The SFBG sued New Times/Village Voice, because California law says selling ads below-cost is illegal. And earlier this week, a jury agreed, awarding the SFBG more than $15 million (!) in damages.
The coverage of the trial by both newspapers has been, well, batshit insane. In any case, here’s the SF Weekly side regarding the verdict; here’s the SFBG side.
Compelling stuff.
This article appears in Mar 6-12, 2008.
Thanks for posting the updates Mr. Boegle. I found it a bit odd that I could not find comment on the Phoenix New Times website. I had to rely on the AAN site and the Bay Guardian for updates. Maybe I just couldn’t find it. I can’t imagine the big wigs at NT took the $15mil spanking lightly. The predatory pricing law in CA is peculiar, nothing like this in AZ I suspect. Reminds me of all the old complaints from alt weeklies, which faced what seemed unsurmountable competition, from dailies under joint operating agreements. Is using the power of the “chain” to sell ads at a discount rate the same as two dailies being able to lower their prices because they share a production and sales staff? Seems like JOAs just prolonged the eventual demise of the dailies. How long would VVM keep that lame duck SF Weekly around anyway? Didn’t New Times Inc buy then drop a paper across The Bay in Oakland. That was a money loser too and they were quick to unload it. Say, wouldn’t TW have an advantage over an independent Weekly sprouting in Tucson? You could be accused of predatory pricing right away! How the heck do you determine fair price for ad space anyhow? TW taking sides on this one?