Lee Abrams Confronts an Actual Reader

It turns out that Lee Abrams never turns it off. He's not only Technicolor-acid-trip-I-took-the-purple-tab bizarre in his memos to us (see the latest example). He also does it one on one.

Below, you'll find an email chain between a young Chicago Tribune reader named Jenny Erin and Abrams. Jen was moved to write Abrams directly after hearing about the Tribune's layoffs. Lee responded. And responded. And responded.

The back and forth shows both one reader's passion for serious news, and Lee Abrams passion for nonsense. My favorite Abrams' phrase: "Those who resisted joining the 21st Century aren't here." A vaguely menacing phrase that combines the best of Tom Robbins, the Borg and those weird background whispers that Lee hears on Pink Floyd albums when he's stoned.

Exchange follows

jen to labrams
show details Jul 16 (5 days ago) Reply

Mr. Abrams,

I don't understand why Tribune Company seems hell-bent on destroying
the very resources that could allow it to compete with the blogosphere
for readers and advertisers.

If you aren't able to attract talented journalists and give them room
to work, you won't produce the kind of content that blogs can link to
(and you sure as hell won't be adding any more Pulitzers to that
company fact sheet). And if you want to attract members of my
generation who might buy a newspaper, this isn't the way to do it.
James O'Shea had it right. If the rest of you can't figure that out,
and soon, your business certainly will bleed to death.



Abrams, Lee to me
show details Jul 16 (5 days ago) Reply


Thanks for your note. I think we have some thinking and direction
that will revitalize newspapers. It's a new world out there and
newspapers need some dramatic new thinking to compete and prosper.
Unfortunately, what tends to get written is generally over-the-top
dramatic, absurd and completely misinformed. That's just my opinion of
course, but I also get to interact with people here who believe in
what is possible if we take the time to break away from the denial and
re-think things.

I'm not sure what your generation is, but it's possible that
newspapers may NOT reach them because of the limitations compared to
the Internet and yet to emege technologies.

Lee



jen to Lee
show details Jul 17 (4 days ago) Reply


Mr. Abrams,
Thank you for your response. I know you must be busy. I'm relieved to
hear that someone on the business side of Tribune is willing to break
away from the denial and re-think things.

<< I'm not sure what your generation is >>
We're labeled "Millenials" most often. Offspring of Baby Boomers --
twentysomethings, mostly.

<< it's possible that newspapers may NOT reach them because of the
limitations compared to the Internet>>
I'm not sure what exact outcome you're implying... to clarify, I
didn't mean the print product only, but the website as well. From what
I've heard, physical newsprint probably is headed for artifact status
(that seems a distinct issue, and not one I'd waste my time e-mailing
you about). But if the Tribune and the L.A. Times are to survive in
any remotely recognizeable form, you clearly have to do a better job
of reaching readers and advertisers online, and adapt a better
monetization model to support the journalism that would attract them.

Tribune Co. probably wouldn't mind being in Google's position right
now; well, Marissa Mayer gave a talk at Stanford last year and spoke
about the ability of Google's founders to provide something people
need, something genuinely useful, that really matters to them. She
also talked about the difference contextual targeting can make -- how
demographically targeted ads monetize exponentially better than
running blind banner ads, etc. etc.

I'm sure none of this is news to you. What I'd like to know is, how do
you expect to capitalize on my demographic information if I never
visit your paper's website? When you're repeatedly and publicly
tossing quality standards overboard, what that says to people who read
the news is that you will be offering them a degraded product, a less
useful one, and one whose content doesn't even matter to you (so why
should it to them)?

Some of my friends follow the news and some don't; it does seem to be
true that the former are invariably my more affluent/upwardly mobile
friends -- i.e., the more attractive advertising targets. But people
who don't read the news aren't stupid (least not the ones I know).
They're relatively savvy consumers who've just decided the news isn't
necessary to them personally. You are not going to change that
calculus by offering them less. They are not going to become loyal
consumers of the Tribune or the Times because they went looking for
"InStyle" and got confused.

<< what tends to get written is over-the-top dramatic, absurd and
completely misinformed.>>

Well: Five incredibly high-profile firings/resignations this year (I
count Lipinski, Hiller, Smith, Montorio, O'Shea... are there more?).
Plans to cut more newsroom staff because, after analyzing their output
by inches of space taken up, you claim you don't need a significant
number of them. Five hundred pages of content per week eliminated,
overall, in favor of a 50/50 news-ad ratio. A move to take the L.A.
Times Magazine out of the hands of professionals on the editorial side
and hand it over to a Home Shopping Network host.

All this on the heels of a 2007 ad revenue drop of almost 10%-- a
larger margin than the industry-wide one-- and your net income
dropping by more than half.

You're right-- that certainly is absurd. Did those things not happen?
I would be happy to realize I've been misinformed on any of the above
counts. If that's the case, please correct me.

Thanks,

- Jen.



Abrams, Lee to me
show details Jul 17 (4 days ago) Reply


Those who resisted joining the 21st Century aren't here. Changing
newspapers so they can survive and prosper is pretty painful stuff AND
of course makes for dramatic blogging. But regardless of what anyone
thinks, our goal is to blow up the old way of doing things so we can
deliver on 2008 instead of 1958 terms. A lot of people don't like
that. I can only suggest that you wait six months or so, see the
results of what we're doing and come to coclusions then

Thanks



jen to Lee
show details Jul 17 (4 days ago) Reply

Look, I give you credit for replying, albeit with a bunch of
condescending malarkey. But spare me the sermons on the new
millenium, old man. That may work on the middle-aged journalists
you've been firing; I have no stake in a hallowed journalistic legacy
or any of that stuff. I'm just giving you the perspective of one more
young person who is embarrassed *for* you, and [as you know all too
well] has plenty of other places to turn for news and entertainment.

We apparently agree on one thing, though: dramatic blog posts are no
substitute for the kind of quality content that's been produced at
companies willing to invest in their product, even in these times. The
ones with both backbone and acumen will emerge with a stronger brand
-- and thus more competitive than those of you who panic,
cannibalizing the very resources you need to attract circulation and
ad revenue.

(By the way, I didn't REALIZE that you've been doing SOME DRAMATIC
BLOGGING of your OWN:
www.tellzell.com/2008/07/lee-abrams-permanent-cloud.html. Does your
CAPS LOCK key stick or something?)

Seriously -- these are not the first "radical" changes you people have
made (and they're not the paradigm-bursting innovations you seem to
believe, f.y.i.). I've taken the "wait and see" approach through
several 6-month periods in the recent past. I hope I am wrong; but by
now, I wouldn't bet on it.

Lucky me, it's not my business to run into the ground. All I can say
is, good luck. You do know the point is for the *newspaper* to survive
as well as the stock, right?