Jackson Free Press

Clarion-Ledger Publisher John Newhouse has released the following statement to the media about their controversial plan to control free distribution outlets in and around Jackson:

The Distribution Network of Central Mississippi (TDN) is a display and delivery network that has been established for the benefit of merchants and free publications in Hinds, Madison and Rankin counties. The growing number of free publications, not just here, but around the country, presents both opportunity and concern for all of us.

There are benefits to merchants and publishers. For area merchants, the multi-pocket display controls the clutter of racks on their property and drives traffic to a concentrated area for the all free publications. Participating publishers can expand their distribution without capital investment and, in many cases, can cut delivery costs.

Publishers can choose as many or as few of the locations to participate in. The merchant solely dictates what publications are to be made available to their customers, just as they do now.

A distribution network will happen in Metro Jackson, if not by The Clarion-Ledger, then quite possibly by a distribution company with no connection to Jackson or Mississippi. And, based on national trends, companies from outside this market would likely charge much higher rates for the same services.

Previous Comments

ID

170477

Comment

OK, two quick comments on this: 1. This distribution service does not benefit free publications. That makes no sense. If it had, they would have bothered to talk to us, and ask for our input, before they starting handing out a list of all of us to businesses to get them to buy in. 2. "Controlling clutter" is a relative phrase. Not every business is likely to find that a huge plastic thing is an attractive alternative. 3. "The merchant solely dictates what publications are to be made available to their customers ... " The problem is that he left off the rest of the sentence: "... from the publications that agree, or can afford to, pay the Gannett Corp. for the honor of being put somewhere in their big plastic box." 4. As for the last paragraph ... so The Clarion-Ledger's big rationale is that someone is going to do it. And someone without ties to Mississippi? Are they acting like they have ties to Mississippi here? Gannett is the largest newspaper company in the world; are we really going to get someone LESS LOCAL if they don't do it? And how do we know that the next company that tries it won't treat the parties better? As in, get our feedback in advance? Or that we won't also refuse to participate in that one? This is a mighty unsatisfasctory response. Remember to visit the JFP's new Citizen's Guide to fighting this scheme. And the JFP's new Goliath Blog is here so you can keep up with the media coverage and weight in. Onward.

Author

ladd

Date

2006-05-22T15:08:01-06:00

ID

170478

Comment

OK, that was more than two comments. Hey. ;-)

Author

ladd

Date

2006-05-22T15:08:40-06:00

ID

170479

Comment

Nothing we couldn't have figured they'd say in that. I didn't expect anything more from them.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-05-22T15:15:22-06:00

ID

170480

Comment

The growing number of free publications, not just here, but around the country, presents both opportunity and concern for all of us. Another grating statement. Just how many of the free publications out there does the Gannett Corp. own??? More than any of the rest of us. "Concern," my foot. As Todd pointed on the Kim Wade Show (which I just heard), newspaper corporations are moving into the free arena because they have to as their paid circulation drops. That is, they are trying to control the free market just as they're getting into it. Quite the trick if you can pull it off. BTW, the Kim Wade podcast will be up tonight. Keep an eye out. It was a good show.

Author

ladd

Date

2006-05-22T15:21:34-06:00

ID

170481

Comment

Agreed, Iron. I think the most interesting thing is that they felt the need to release a statement. The grass-roots campaign must be hitting its mark. That means it's time to triple our efforts. ;-)

Author

ladd

Date

2006-05-22T15:22:21-06:00

ID

170482

Comment

This poll keeps getting better—now only 19 percent support the Gannett scheme: WLBT Online Poll Do you think small independent publications should be forced to pay the Clarion Ledger to have their papers displayed in front of local businesses? Thank you for participating in our poll. Here are the results so far. Yes 19% No 78% Not Sure 3%

Author

ladd

Date

2006-05-22T15:25:15-06:00

ID

170483

Comment

Another "Duh!" moment from their PR department If it wern't for newsprint costs going up, they could give the CL away based on Ad revenue.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-05-22T15:47:50-06:00

ID

170484

Comment

You know, the other thing that irks me about this is that lots of free publications is a sign of a "creative class" city -- a place where things are happening. It's kind of like a wonderful warm home filled with books and art. THIS IS WHAT WE WANT JACKSON TO LOOK LIKE TO NEWCOMERS, not to mention residents, people! That is, it's a sign of vibrancy, and Gannett Corp. just wants to "clean" it up for us (after putting out more freebies than anyone else). Egad.

Author

ladd

Date

2006-05-22T16:17:53-06:00

ID

170485

Comment

BTW, all, pick up your copy of American Classifieds this week. Publisher Beverly Smith has a story/letter on the front page! Nice.

Author

ladd

Date

2006-05-22T16:29:26-06:00

ID

170486

Comment

I think I'm going to start picking up a copy of each of the independent free papers in the display racks, even Jackson's Christian Families, and give them a look. This response from Gannett/C-L is disingenuous bordering on laugh-out-loud funny. Do they think we're all stupid? Well, yes, actually. That much we already knew. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-05-22T16:39:04-06:00

ID

170487

Comment

Please do, Tom. This is a good and hard-working group of small-business owners who employ local people and give back to the local economy. They deserve our support as much as the JFP does. As I keep saying, don't only tell distribution spots that you support the JFP, but all of the free papers as well. And wholeheartedly thank the business owners for offering the service of these papers to their readers. A community is only as strong as the strength of its local businesses. And it is to all of our best interests to speak up for local businesses.

Author

ladd

Date

2006-05-22T16:44:40-06:00

ID

170488

Comment

Interesting story in a California alt about their daily newspaper corporation's predatory pricing. I'm sure the Gannett Corp. would never consider such a thing.

Author

ladd

Date

2006-05-22T18:27:20-06:00

ID

170489

Comment

the Kim Wade podcast is up now :)

Author

William Patrick Butler

Date

2006-05-22T23:38:50-06:00

ID

170490

Comment

I suggest temporarily removing "FREE" from the cover and quietly putting a "1-cent" sticker price on the JFP with instructions to "pay at register" in agate type. I doubt many people will bother, but I'm sure your merchants will be happy to accept whatever few pennies are generated and the JFP will no longer technically be "free" or legally subject to the C-L eviction scheme. That ought to give the geniuses at the C-L legal dept. a conniption fit for a little while (LOL). Ed

Author

ed inman

Date

2006-05-22T23:54:01-06:00

ID

170491

Comment

Hmmm. Other possibilities... - The Jackson Smile Press: You have to smile at a store employee in order to pick up an issue. - The Jackson Hug Press: But we'd have to set an upper limit or Frank Melton would take all the copies. - The Jackson Drinking Game Press: Pick up an issue, then take a shot of bourbon. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-05-23T04:16:18-06:00

ID

170492

Comment

All, we got a great letter last night in response to this. One great point was that the Gannett Corp. wouldn't sign on for their free publications if another company comes in and tries to do it! So the argument that they should do it -- with all their locals ties and all -- before someone else does is bogus. Excellent point.

Author

ladd

Date

2006-05-23T13:09:21-06:00

ID

170493

Comment

"Interesting story in a California alt about their daily newspaper corporation's predatory pricing." Hmm...so Alts charging nothing for their papers is not "predatory," but a daily lowering its advertising rates is? How does that work?

Author

Liberty Dog

Date

2006-05-23T15:22:37-06:00

ID

170494

Comment

Dog, you're missing the point. Any paper can be given away for free to the consumer (much like, you know, network television and radio), but it's advertising that matters in this business. That's where the revenue comes from, and that's where the predatory part comes in (and there's a lot of court history to explain this further if you care that much). Also, the reason distribution and circulation matters so much, from a business standpoint, is that it determines how much we can charge for our rates. The higher the distribution, the higher the ad rates (unless you're playing predatory games).

Author

ladd

Date

2006-05-23T15:44:42-06:00

ID

170495

Comment

As I've said, the CL could drop it's prices back to .35 cents, or even free with the right ad revenue. Nothing preventing them except sales.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-05-23T16:01:22-06:00

ID

170496

Comment

Ladd...were you actually able to type that response to me with a straight face? What am I, in third grade? Perhaps there are those that need such basic tutorials concerning how papers make money, but I am not one of them. However, since you laid it out let me address something you wrote: "... is that it determines how much we can charge for our rates. The higher the distribution, the higher the ad rates (unless you're playing predatory games)." While distribution and circulation certainly speak to the upper limit that the market will bear for your advertising services, it in no way speaks to what the lower limit should or must be. There is nothing immoral about offering a service at a loss even if it is intended as a form a competition. A good example of such would be gas stations that choose to sell gas below their cost in order to draw customers in with the hope that they will purchase other items while in the store. Would you consider that predatory? If so, what is the determining factor? Is it the size of the company that owns the gas station? What about this scenario...someone moves to town and starts an ALT, but due to the fact that they are rich, they decide to give away the ad space in their paper. Is that predatory? What I am getting at is, where is the line between competitive and "predatory?" Is is based on a discrepancy in resources of those involved? If so, why? Now on to another question. I often seen people (including yourself) refer to the "corporate" media and the "independent" media. However, looking at the bottom of any page on this site indicates that the JFP is indeed owned by a corporation. At what point do corporations become evil, and not independent. When that corporation owns 2 media outlets? How about 5, 10, 50? What if they only own one, but they are not locally based?

Author

Liberty Dog

Date

2006-05-23T17:36:05-06:00

ID

170497

Comment

Did you really just ask me that last question with a straight face, Dog? There could very easily be gray areas between what makes two media outlets corporate, but using the examples of the JFP, because it's incorporated, and Gannett, the largest newspaper corporation in the world, is so hilarious that I'm not going to be drawn in by your bait. Come on, Dude. And, no, I do not believe it is ethical to give away ad space in your publication in order to outdo the competition. We have strict rules about this kind of thing, although many publications do not. As for the predatory 101 lesson, we'll have to do that one later. I'm still on deadline here. I'm also not getting the feeling you're tryign to have a serious discussion, considerin the ridiculously extreme examples you're relying on. JFP v. Gannett: Which ones is more corporate!?! Lord.

Author

ladd

Date

2006-05-23T17:57:25-06:00

ID

170498

Comment

A simplistic primer on the concept of predatory pricing to help define what we're talking about here.

Author

ladd

Date

2006-05-23T17:59:36-06:00

ID

170499

Comment

Ladd, keeping your tight schedule in mind, could you point me to the location in my last post that I mentioned Gannett? Thanks. :)

Author

Liberty Dog

Date

2006-05-23T18:47:24-06:00

ID

170500

Comment

I did, when I started this thread about the Clarion-Ledger. Thanks. :)

Author

ladd

Date

2006-05-23T18:51:34-06:00

ID

170501

Comment

Oh, and again...I don't need any "simplistic primer" concerning the concept. I fully understand what it is. Rather I was trying to get you to tell me what YOU believe it to be. As for YOUR given example of JFP vs. Gannett, their is no such thing as "more corporate." Either an entity is a corporation or it is not. The amount of holdings it has is indeterminate of an entity's "corporateness."

Author

Liberty Dog

Date

2006-05-23T18:57:57-06:00

ID

170502

Comment

Let's make it simple for you, Dog: Many people do not use the word "corporate" simply to mean "incorporated." Bully for you if you do. Otherwise, you seem to be trying to do that right-wing blogosphere thing of trying to making someone argue that something factual is actually a fact, thus detracting from any useful discussion. Your contention above that "predatory pricing" doesn't even exist as a possibility, legal or otherwise, is I assume a trick to disarm what many of us already know to be true. It exists in the United States. If you don't agree with the concept of predatory pricing, fine, have that argument and tell us why. But don't insult our intelligence here by trying to pretend that I just made up the existence of "predatory pricing" out of thin air. You're just making yourself look silly when you do that. It's sad when you set yourself up to look foolish with a single Wikipedia posting, of all things. Try a little harder. So I'll leave now. – Donna

Author

casey

Date

2006-05-23T20:53:58-06:00

ID

170503

Comment

"Many people do not use the word "corporate" simply to mean "incorporated." Bully for you if you do." Yes...silly me. There I go with that whole "words have actual meanings" meme again. What could I be thinking. It must be pleasant living in a world where you can just transmogrify the language to mean whatever you choose. As for trying to "trick" you, if you think anything I have said is tricky, you would seem to have persecution issues. I will, however, be glad to explain to you the problems with the "predatory pricing" argument tomorrow. And don't worry, I was not trying to give you credit for coming up with such a ridiculous idea. Finally, as it was you who linked to the "simplistic primer" and not I, if anyone looks silly due to it, it is the person staring back at you in the mirror. I didn't even discuss it other than to say that I didn't need it. I will say this in parting this evening: I would expect someone in your position to posses a more elegant skill set at presenting an argument rather than continually resorting to ad hominem such as calling me silly and foolish, but if that is the game you wish to play, so be it.

Author

Liberty Dog

Date

2006-05-23T23:21:42-06:00

ID

170504

Comment

Liberty Dog writes: Yes...silly me. There I go with that whole "words have actual meanings" meme again. What could I be thinking. It must be pleasant living in a world where you can just transmogrify the language to mean whatever you choose. Oh, give it a rest. Contrasts between "corporations" and "small businesses" are clearly part of the vernacular despite the fact that most small businesses are technically incorporated. Everyone, including you, knows what "corporate" really means in this context. And words do have meaning. They don't always match up very neatly with the most literal definition. If you don't know this, you're missing out on some of the more enjoyable aspects of the English language. In any case: This is all getting very tedious, because I think it has become clear to everyone who has read both this site and the Other One that you're criticizing Donna over here so that you can brag about it again over there, in much the same way that a kid might smart off to his teacher so he'll look cool to his peers. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt early on, but now what you're doing is so blatant that it's silly. I think your adolescent contributions to this thread are a distraction from the important media monopoly issues under discussion, and need to be moved to the TrollBlog. Donna has been generous with you--much more generous than I would have been--but this is not a thread about how Liberty Dog can earn his N-JAM wings. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-05-24T03:05:38-06:00

ID

170505

Comment

Tom...with all due respect, your assertions are absolutely ridiculous. The ONLY time I have ever "criticized" Donna on the "Other Site" was to criticize her definition of racist, which I also did right here on this site. Your attempt to assert otherwise is patently false. Also, as I see it is impossible to have an actual discussion here without repeatedly having to dodge the juvenile aspersions being cast at me anytime I happen to disagree with a position advocated here, I hereby formally ban myself. This whole place, while seemingly having potential is just a sad little joke.

Author

Liberty Dog

Date

2006-05-24T09:48:38-06:00

ID

170506

Comment

Dog, your aspersions are noted. Now this thread will return to its regularly scheduled purpose of discussing the Gannett Corp.'s tactics over smaller publications without further delay.

Author

ladd

Date

2006-05-24T10:47:53-06:00

ID

170507

Comment

liberty dog..BREATHE...lol... I know it's hard to wade through all the b.s. ignorance around here but overall ladd does a good job of keeping this e-newspaper interesting despite all the trolls that log on. So don't leave, but instead leave this place better than you found it. I respect your views and I want to see more of your input in the future. peace

Author

JSU

Date

2006-05-24T11:34:20-06:00

ID

170508

Comment

If you're looking for the Clarion-Ledger statement, it has moved here. Thanks!

Author

ladd

Date

2006-05-24T15:09:42-06:00