SF Chronicle's Fiscal Problems Due To Bad Management

The San Francisco Chronicle lost $50 million last year and is reportedly going to lose more this year. The reason isn't the Internet, that's a symptom. The reason is bad management and not wokring with New Media people.

For example, why didn't the SF Chron make it's own version of Craiglist? Why didb't it work with Craig Newmark, or at least try to? Why -- in the region that invented blogging -- did the SF Chronicle not work with blogger like myself so we can help extend their brand online?

It's because of a stupid SF Bay Area habit of not paying attention to someone because they're local. How else to explain why the SF Chron is losing money and having a hard time being successful online in an area that basically gave birth to the Internet?

Bad management is to blame. It's true for the Chronicle and for the Oakland Tribune and San Jose Mercury News. They can't fit a square print peg into a round New Media hole as much as they keep trying. I told a famous Chronicle columnist two years ago how to improve their online performance because our blog posts would out rank their articles in searches consistently.

His reaction? Well we know what we're doing.

Like hell you do. That's why your paper's about to go the way of the T-Rex, in fact that's a good comparison. It's not that the SF Chroncle or Tribune can't be saved, but both papers have to stop a number of practices large and small.

And before someone at the SF Chron claims they do better than the online HuffingtonPost.com -- they don't. A simple comparison using Alexa.com will show the HuffingtonPost to be well ahead of SFGate.com in page views, visitors and really all categories of web traffic analysis that are done in looking at value of a site both to advertiser and investors.

The SF Chronicle needs help but the best way to do it is to sack the current mangement and hire me. Seriously. Give me one year to turn it around and establish what should be: the tripod of print, TV, and Online content.