Anybody else kind of finding Sam Zell an interesting figure?

You think Copley, Sulzberger and Graham are buying people out and laying them off for shits and giggles?
Those are three "traditional" newspaper families giving it a try...

Copley is half his mom (figuratively, of course.)
Sulzberger has an institution in trouble despite our industry's best web product.
The Grahams are well diversified and won't invest in media past The Post and post.com.
No saving happening there. At best, survival.

No more Ridders, Chandlers, Bancrofts. They're gone.

 

No, I think they are too scared to say no matter the medium, the goal is to produce a product that people can't wait to read and we are going to take a short-term hit instead of sending the whole thing down the crapper. They're afraid if they don't do what every other company is doing, people will think they're living in a time warp. Copley has zero excuse because the company is privately held. Sulzberger and Graham have little excuse because the stockholders don't run their companies.

 

I absolutely agree.

 

If more newspaper management types had this philosophy, it wouldn't be a bad thing. Most employees do care about the product, but rarely are they encouraged to openly question the paper's direction.

(from Mariotti's column)
This is the guy who, after buying Tribune Co., came out with a new employee handbook. In one section, workers are urged to ``ask your manager, supervisor, business unit head or anyone in Corporate any question you have regarding the business. Question authority and push back if you do not like the answer. You will earn respect, and not get into trouble for asking tough questions."

 

I think he looks and sounds like a crazy, old man. But he is definitely interesting. I got this e-mail forwarded to me from one of his employees last week.

From: Talk to Sam <talktoSam@Tribune.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 09:23:08 -0800
Conversation: My salary
Subject: My salary

Fellow Employees,

You may have heard me say that I will be taking an annual salary of 50 cents. Apparently, that figure was disturbing to some people. Someone on my team recently received an e-mail from an employee who was concerned that 50 cents does not divide evenly into 26 paychecks.

So, I’ve decided we should form a committee, hold a meeting, and then hire a compensation consultant to decide if my salary should be increased to 52 cents a year.

While I’m sure that falls under the cap for raises, it may be against some old policy restricting salary increases for employees with less than 12 months of tenure.

Do I need a committee, meeting and another consultant to change that policy?

Oh, that’s right, I’m in charge now. What policy?

More to come…

Sam

 

I have no problem with that email. It might be a rather crass way of communicating with his employees, but he does seem open to having a dialogue.
I believe it was 21 who got Dave Kindred to start posting here. Maybe she can figure a way to invite Sam Zell. It seems like he'd consider it.

 

I've got nothing wrong with the e-mail, either. I do find it a bit off-the-wall, though. But if that's his personality, that's his personality. You shouldn't have to change for anyone.

 

The vocabulary, the two-unbuttoned buttons, the billy-goat goatee and the references to "gentlemen's clubs" and "porn" creep me out. Period. He's like the nasty old boss behind the bad guys in a Steven Seagal movie. It is far easier to picture him sprawled on some bed with two or three hookers, pinky rings and a coke spoon than it is dressed appropriately on "Meet The Press," intelligently discussing any of the big issues of the day.

Zell has shown no class, his defense of his gutter language was lame (trying to wake up the employees? right) and, as stated, above, he is a takeover expert whose life has been devoted to money, not any sort of journalism savior. It is the fault of the suits who have come before Zell that someone like Zell has wormed his way in, but he is a last-ditch hope, not a new, improved solution. And the only reason he hasn't begun replacing top editors, unlike some other egomaniac owners in the newspaper world, is that Zell has no track record and thus no ready list of ass-kissers with newsroom experience. And he probably doesn't know anyone from the British or Aussie press.

 

Very well said... He'll wind up in a higher level of hell than those two or any of the Gannett higher-ups...

One of the funniest lines I've heard in a long time was...

"Gannett exists so there will newspapers to read in hell..."

 

Ever see the movie "In Good Company"? If you haven't, do it.

There was a character 'Teddy K' played by an unbilled Malcolm McDowell.



Teddy K was the batshit crazy mergers-and-acquisitions billionaire media magnate. The head of 'GlobeCom.'

There's even a scene where Dennis Quaid confonts him at one of these "town hall meetings." Sound familiar?

My point: Zell seems like a cliche to me-- a character who's been the subject of send-ups circa 2004.

Consider this.

Tribune owns 20-some-odd TV stations. The guy Zell put in charge of broadcast and internet is Randy Michaels (not his real name).

Randy Michaels made his fortune in radio by firing people and putting in place shock-jock strategies, crude stunts, etc.

Here's an article about him.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-thur_michaelsdec20,1,3904811.story?coll=chi_breaking_500&ctrack=2&cset=true

Honestly, isn't that all you need to know?

 

Jacor and Clear Channel did a nice job of killing local radio, too.

 

"And don't let my upbeat expression of longterm optimism hit you in the ass on the way out."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tribune14feb14,0,884189.story

http://poynter.org/forum/view_post.asp?id=13127