Evaluating print and broadcast news in the San Francisco Bay Area from A to F.
E-mail to a friend | Printer-friendly version | Discuss story

Guest commentary

Humbler profits won't encourage buyouts

Newspapers earn more than other industries, can afford to boost quality

Lou Alexander makes some interesting and realistic points about newspapers and profitability. But he sets up a premise, "cutting newspaper margin expectations to something under l0%," that is easy to knock down.

While academics and some journalists may decry newspaper companies' efforts to increase profit margins -- and have suggested lower margins could permit greater spending on news gathering -- I am unaware of anyone suggesting margins of under 10%. That would be less than half the average operating margin for the newspaper operations of publicly reporting companies, which was 20.5% in 2004 (covering a range from 15.3% at the Washington Post Co. to 27.7% at Gannett).

A point Alexander might have made is that while a 20% average margin is high compared with many businesses, some of the reason for this is inherent in the newspaper business. Unlike, say, department store or grocery chains, newspapers are not burdened with covering the profit margins of a series of raw-material suppliers, manufacturers, wholesalers and distributors that contribute to the products that ultimately are sold at retail.

Essentially, newspapers pay for newsprint (most of which is brought directly from producers without an intervening wholesaler's profit margin) and for their production, sales and distribution costs (which are largely in-house). Newspapers do have to pay for wire services and the like, but most of newspaper content likewise is created in-house.

The opportunity in this is not quite as great as Alexander assumes.

Alexander is right that if a CEO got away with dropping profit margins to 10% or lower, the better to produce higher quality newspapers, there would be hell to pay to the company's directors and Wall Street. The stock price doubtless would fall, and at companies like Knight Ridder, without the protection of super-voting shares held by family members, an unfriendly takeover attempt could be the consequence.

So far, the newspaper business remains reasonably collegial among owners, and the only example of one newspaper company trying to take over another in an unfriendly way happened way back in he 1970s, when Advance Publications (Newhouse) mounted a successful tender offer for Booth Newspapers of Michigan. Intentions, though, can change.

The more likely scenario, also suggested by Alexander, is an unfriendly tender offer from a takeover consortium. I would add to that an offer from a company (Google?) completely outside the newspaper business.

The opportunity in this is not quite as great as Alexander assumes. He cites Knight Ridder's market capitalization as $4.7 billion (it's gone down since he wrote this) and a breakup value of around $6.63 billion. The $4.7 billion market capitalization represents a collective minority ownership, while an unfriendly takeover offer would require a substantial premium -- in my experience 30% to 50% -- which would pretty much wipe out the difference between the market capitalization and breakup value.

Most takeover artists, though, generally tend to hang onto newly acquired properties until cost efficiencies (layoffs and other actions calculated to increase profit margins) produce higher earnings and a higher sell-off price. Alexander is right that this would not be a pleasant scenario for those working at the newspapers, or for anybody who cares a damn about the quality of newspapers.

The hard truth, though, is that probably newspapers of the future will have lower profit margins, not by design but because competition from the Internet and elsewhere is only going to get tougher and newspaper readers, a distinctly aging group, will continue to die off faster than they will be replaced.

John Morton is a newspaper-industry analyst in Silver Spring, Md., and a columnist for American Journalism Review.

Mr. Alexander responds

News corporations may no longer be so resistant to take-overs

I am more than slightly awed to be involved in a dialogue with John Morton. I just an old ad guy who writes from his patio in San Jose and he’s JOHN MORTON.

But here goes…I tried to deal with the inappropriate focus on my “10% margin” suggestion in my response to the commentary by Professor Stephen R. Lacy.

I think for the most part Morton agrees with me more than he disagrees. Our disagreements seem to be a matter of degree.

He shares my concern about an unfriendly take over by a non-newspaper company. Google, Yahoo and Microsoft could be companies looking for a content provider like a newspaper chain if the price were low enough. And his fear of what would happen if a takeover artist bled the profit from newspapers is certainly the same as mine.

He is more willing than I am to depend on the friendly nature of newspaper companies to keep them from gobbling each other up. That is probably reasonable at the moment. Unfortunately, I fear collegiality will be less a deterrent as the heads of the public companies come more and more from the world of investment bankers. Also, I have distinct memories from the 1980s of a time when another newspaper company (Cox, I believe) had accumulated enough KRI stock to have executed a takeover had they chosen to do so.

Finally, I completely disagree with the esteemed Mr. Morton that “ newspapers are not burdened with covering the profit margins of a series of raw-material suppliers, manufacturers, wholesalers and distributors that contribute to the products that ultimately are sold at retail” in department stores or grocery chains.

At a newspaper the “raw-material suppliers, manufacturers, wholesalers and distributors” are people. Reporters, photographers, editors, ad staffs, IT staffs, production staffs, mailers and several dozen other job classifications all demand their own “profit margin” in the form of regular paychecks, medical insurance, other benefits and a thousand non-salary expenses.

What do you think? Discuss it in The Coffeehouse.


A project of the School of Journalism and Mass Communications at San Jose State University, Grade the News is affiliated with the Graduate Program in Journalism at Stanford University and KTEH, public television in Silicon Valley.

Monitoring the Bay Area's most popular news media:

Contra Costa Times

Knight Ridder

San Francisco Chronicle


San Jose Mercury News

Knight Ridder

KTVU, Oakland (FOX)

KTVU, Oakland (FOX)

KRON, San Francisco

KRON, San Francisco

KPIX, San Francisco (CBS)

KPIX, San Francisco (CBS)

KGO, San Francisco (ABC)

KGO, San Francisco (ABC)

KNTV, San Jose (NBC)

KNTV, San Jose (NBC)


Bay Area media advocates:

Media Alliance
Center for the Integration and Improvement of Journalism at SFSU
Maynard Institute
Youth Media Council
Project Censored
New California Media
Society of Professional Journalists, Northern California chapter
National Writers Union Bay Area chapter

Site highlights


The three-part series follows the rise of three Bay Area handouts:
• Part 1: At free dailies, advertisers sometimes call the shots
• Part 2: Free daily papers: more local but often superficial
• Part 3: Free papers' growth threatens traditional news
• See also: SF Examiner and Independent agree to end payola restaurant reviews
• And: The free tabloid that wasn't: East Bay's aborted Daily Flash


Lou Alexander started a firestorm with his original guest commentary predicting the company would be sold. Several other experts on newspapers have weighed in:
Newspapers can't cut their way back into Wall Street investors' hearts, by Stephen R. Lacy; Alexander responds
Humbler profits won't encourage buyouts, by John Morton; Alexander responds
Newspapers can't maintain monopoly profits because they've lost their monopolies, by Philip Meyer
Knight Ridder in grave jeopardy, by Lou Alexander...


Leakers and plumbers: There's no difference between a good leak and a bad leak? Journalists need a shield law. 11/22/05
Unintended consequences: How Craigslist and similar services are sucking revenue from faltering newspapers. 9/13/05
Is CPB irrelevant? As Congress moves to cut public broadcasting funds, has CPB become obsolete in the modern marketplace. 6/26/05
The paradox of news: There's more news available and its cheaper than ever before, but fewer young people are interested. 5/12/05


Most recent updatesHow the Bay Area's most popular media stack up.Talk about Bay Area journalism in our on-line discussion forum. A printable news scorecard you can use at home or in school. Raves and rants aimed at the local media. What would you do if you were the editor? Upcoming happenings and calls for public action. Let 'em know! Contact a local newsroom.Codes of ethics, local media advocates and journalism tools. Tip us off about the local media, or tell us how we're doing.Oops.A comprehensive list of past GTN exclusives.