Snooze takes bath on Belo Building sale

Last fall, after moving out of the historic Belo Building, AND not even spending money to move "The Rock of Truth" to its rented digs, the, I am sorry, The Dallas Morning News sold the building for $33 million.

Although nobody would officially tie this to Amazon's national Grifting for Dollars work as it hunted for a second headquarters, which it eventually of course split into two parts and has now pulled back on the NYC part, everybody saw it that way, especially since KDC and Hoque backed out soon after Amazon said sorry to Dallas.

Well, the Snooze has now sold it again.

For $5 million less.

In addition, original buyer KDC said that if it resold to Amazon, the Snooze would get a cut. New buyer Ray Washburne made no such pledge, even though, technically, Amazon could come calling. He's also paying less than $6M of it up front.

There's that anti-Midas touch at work! And, it should be noted that Belo, at the time of the original sale and the run-up to it, had said it thought the site was worth more than $30 million. Guess again.

Per that second link, which is from D Magazine, it seems hard not to see a push by an activist shareholder for Belo to go private and/or sell the paper as being behind this in some way. A letter from said shareholder notes that Belo's digital marketing has tanked even more than the paper itself.

I think, re the digital marketing, what we have is a signature moment mix of Belo arrogance and Belo stupidity. That said, said activist investor could have found 15-20 straight years of semi-regular occurrences of that; nobody forced him to buy his shares.

Meanwhile, back to the buildings.

The Snooze had first semi-promised the legend-hoary Rock of Truth would move. Then it didn't.

And on that legend-hoariness? Per D Magazine, Jim Schutze hoist teh Snooze by its own petard three years ago.

Hey may not know Mavericks hoops, but he does know CEO-ing more than Snooze

Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban makes a compelling case to make CEO pay cash-only:

Make companies generate 100 percent of their compensation in cash that will be 100 percent expensable in the quarter paid.

Counteracting the “CEO as riskmeister” myth, Cuban writes:

Everyone who works for that company is at risk – of losing their jobs, benefits, raises, you name it. Employees live in the corporate cash zone, while CEOs and the top few in management live in the equity/lottery ticket zone.

Too bad an outsider like Cuban had to write something like this instead of the Dallas Morning News’ own op-ed staff

Of course, given that Bob Decherd, CEO of Belo Corp., the parent of the Snooze, got a $3 million bonus last year, despite a negatively performing company — a bonus that works out at about $60,000 per each of 50 fired editorial employees — it’s no wonder it took an outsider to write this.

The only wonder is that the Snooze even published it.

Hypocrisy alert – Bob Decherd and Belo Corp

Only eight of Dallas-Fort Worth’s 50 largest companies had both a revenue decline in 2007 from 2006 AND negative value to shareholders in 2007.

One of those was Belo Corp, parent of The Dallas Morning News.

The News has been slumping even by the standards of seven-day daily newspaper declines. (Interestingly, the San Diego Union-Tribune and the Orange County Register, two other openly conservative papers, have joined the Snooze at or near the bottom of worst-performing major dailies the last three or so years. The New York Post and Washington Times are perennial money losers.)

That did not phase the board of directors of Belo, apparently. Decherd, at $3 million, got the fifth-biggest bonus of those top-50 company CEOs. His total compensation for the year ranked 13th, at a shade over $10 million.

That $3 million bonus? What is that, about $60,000 each for the 50 or so editorial folks who have gotten the ax at the Snooze in the last three years or so?

Sorry I can’t find a link to the graphic box illustrating this that goes with the main story. I’d love to ask Pamela Yip, who wrote the main store and has seen dozens of friends and coworkers get axed over the last three years, how she felt about digging up that nugget.

If you’d like to ask her, here you go.

Google makes it easier to avoid Morning News website

First, let me say, as tens of thousands of others in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex have said over the last three-plus years since the Snooze, officially known as The (don’t forget to capitalize that “the,” New York Times pretentiousness and all) Dallas Morning News, changed its website to its current form.

It sucks.

It sucks donkey dongs.

It sucks George Bannerman Dealey’s donkey dong, in fact.

It is probably THE WORST website of any major seven-day daily newspaper in the United States, excepting of course, other A.H. Belo papers in Riverside, Calif. and Providence, R.I. (Belo websites suck because Belo blows — the different papers’ websites are mirror images.)

One of the worst things about the Snooze’s website is the impossibility of finding any Snooze story that is not actually linked on the website’s homepage. The story may have been written in the last 24 hours; it may have run in that day’s hardcopy.

But, if it ain’t on the homepage of the website, you ain’t gonna find it.

Solution? After getting frustrated at the donkey-dong sucking Snooze website (see for yourself), I go to Google News, hit the advanced news search, enter Dallas Morning News as my search (don’t even have to use “the,” let alone the prissy-fit capitalized version), and then enter my normal Google search words.

Voila! Link(s) spit out to just the right articles.

Well, now, Google is going one step further.

This month, the company introduced a search-within-search feature that lets users stay on Google to find pages on popular sites like those of The Washington Post, Wikipedia, The New York Times, Wal-Mart and others. The search box appears when someone enters the name of certain Web addresses or company names — say, “Best Buy” — rather than entering a request like “cellphones.”

The results of the search are almost all individual company pages. Google tops those results with a link to the home page of the Web site in question, adds another search box, and offers users the chance to let Google search for certain things within that site.

The problem, for some in the industry, is that when someone enters a term into that secondary search box, Google will display ads for competing sites, thereby profiting from ads it sells against the brand. The feature also keeps users searching on Google pages and not pages of the destination Web site.

Tough shit. Your unsearchable website, with further editorial cuts ahead, certainly won’t get better. If anything, it will get worse.

Oh, and to throw you further under the bus… you have a paper always bragging about the APME awards it wins for sports coverage, then it outsources all its high school stuff to a third-party site, one that doesn’t have as much online high school sports as the DMN did five years ago.

You don’t like it? Make your own website better. Google is, indeed, just saving me more work now.

Belo’s butt is in a sling now!

Read the age-discrimination and pension-mismanagement lawsuit against the News; a number of former employees are alleging age discrimination and connecting it to a post-2000 split in pension offerings.

That said, I know age-discrimination lawsuits aren’t easy to prove. But the pension mismanagement issues, including ERISA issues, stand independent of the age of any employees.