Skip to content

Applaud the Grahams, but acknowledge their failures

August 14, 2013

By Ryan Chittum

The hosannas for Donald Graham got a bit out of hand in the wake of his sale of the Washington Post to Jeff Bezos.

I’m thinking specifically of this open letter in the Post itself, from the guy who wrote Graham’s advance obit.

Henry Blodget is on to something here in writing about an investor (whom Valleywagwrites is “probably” Marc Andreessen, who’s on the Facebook board with Graham) who’s also rolling his eyes:

I can’t take it anymore. All of this high-minded windiness on the Post, the Grahams, journalism, democracy, etc.

I took a screenshot of the Post home page the day of the big story itself [see below].

Note the big ad in the upper right of the home page.

The CPM [price per thousand views] on that was, what, 5 cents?…

What we have here is not a story of the decline of newspapers in America blah blah blah. What we have here is a story of basic business incompetence.

post-front-pageActually it’s a lot of the former and a good amount of the latter, but point taken.

Blodget has a more moderate take:

(The Grahams) bought an education company that quickly became larger and more profitable than their newspaper. That education company, and some other assets (TV), will remain in the family portfolio now that the Washington Post has been jettisoned.

Interestingly, what the Grahams did not do was invest the quite-considerable profits from their other businesses in the future of the Post—a fact that should probably be noted in some of the Graham hagiographies. Instead, they dumped the paper the moment it stopped making them money.

It’s easy to “steward” a business when it’s also making you rich. It’s more difficult when the going gets tough.

True, but it’s worth noting that the Grahams, as well as the Sulzbergers and Bancrofts, never pulled as much money out of their newspapers as they could have back in the good old days. Back in 2006, for instance, the Post newspaper division’s operating margin was just 6.5 percent. That’s one of the primary reasons the Washington Post,New York Times, and Wall Street Journal will survive and possibly even flourish fifty years from now when Gannett’s newspapers, say, are long forgotten. They weren’t run primarily as cash cows for short-sighted owners, though the Bancrofts’ dividendsseriously weakened the Journal and Dow Jones.

While the Grahams slashed the Post’s newsroom and overall budget in response to its collapsing revenue, a less news-loving family would have cut even more. The company’s newspaper division has posted operating losses for five consecutive years as budget cuts have failed to keep up with revenue losses (to be sure, a good chunk of those roughly $460 million in operating losses came from severance costs).

But it’s true that the Post has been seriously mismanaged. Its decision to focus on DC rather than to go national now looks like a serious mistake. The Times, which the Postonce rivaled in stature, and whose chairman gets far worse press than Graham, is in a far better position having gone that route.

And the company has disgorged the cash to shareholders while slashing its newsroom. The PostCo has upped its generous dividend throughout the crisis, pausing only in 2009, and has spent more than a billion dollars on share buybacks. The buybacks look much better than they did in May 2012 when I found that the company had paper losses of $87 on each bought-back share. Now they’re at paper profits of roughly $160 a share. But those gains have gone to shareholders rather than into business investments like the Post. Read more in the Columbia Journalism Review.

Advertisements

From → Analysis, Commentary

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s