By "worse," I'm not referring to editorial content, op-ed stances or anything like that.
I'm referring to worse financially.
Back in the good old days, pre-financial bubble, pre-housing bubble, pre-auto sales bubble, and before Net 2.0 caught on too much, papers still hoped to have as much as 50 percent of their print content to be ads. They definitely targeted 40 percent, with the understanding that, way back then, even before the Advance chain cut back on delivery on these days, that some days, like Mondays, were slow for ads.
Well, regular readers have seen me bust the Austin American-Statesman in the chops for being as low as 10 percent adhole on Mondays.
And, in the online world, they've seen me slap the Dallas Morning News repeatedly for its digital misadventures, including starting a paywall then killing it.
(I know the Houston Chronicle has a paywall; I don't know what its print adhole usually is.)
Well, I have seen a paper that combines the worst of both worlds.
The San Francisco Chronicle.
Like the Snooze, it has no paywall, and it went down a similar road: It had a "premium" version at one time, then junked that.
Its adhole? Even worse than the Statesman's.
Just 8 percent on a Tuesday, which is not as slow an ad day as a Monday. Just 16 percent on Wednesday, which is definitely not as slow an ad day. Just 42 pages on a Wednesday as a result, for a paper in a major metro area with a vibrant economy.
Seems like Hearst needs to do an Advance, or something.
That said, Anschutz's wingnut San Francisco Examiner, if it's still around, has to be a money bleeder even worse.
That said, this was a "three-star" issue out in Red Bluff, California; I've been told that in-Bay issues have a higher ad percentage. That said, given that Red Bluff (up on the Sacramento River in northern California) is a lot closer to Sacto than San Fran, why is the Chronicle even circulating out there, weak adhole or not?