Mail Tribune Brings in Lawyers

The Mail Tribune: "We are turning this matter over to our lawyers."

A lesson on how to do crisis management exactly wrong.  

It is heartbreaking, because this community needs a community newspaper, and they are making things worse for themselves.  

Some pay $442/yr

Here was their problem. Their renewal subscription prices are crazy, from $442 per year down to $114.40 per year, and prices in between, for exactly the same thing, a one year subscription renewal. I warned them the result of having 5 different prices for five similar people sitting around the same table damaged the credibility for the Tribune if they ever happened to compare notes. 

The Tribune says they are working on the problem. Meanwhile, they perpetuate the problem as renewals go out.  Did they need some encouragement to do something?  

I wrote about it in a blog post: "Mail Tribune Squanders Credibility."  I thought it might encourage them to accelerate their progress toward fixing their PR problem if they realized people were beginning to notice. They took this poorly. 

At first they handled the problem correctly.  Sincere.  Mature.

The problem perpetuates: $114/yr.

The editor emailed me and said she wished I had called them and let them give context to my blog story.  She said they knew there was a problem and they were working on it. That was smart.  Of course huge disparity in prices is a problem. She said they have a great new owner committed to rebuilding community trust. I inferred that she and the Tribune understood that Its business practices could not be just like Charter or Verizon or Dish. Customers can be cynical about those companies, but if they become cynical about their newspaper the newspaper loses its position in the reader's mind as an authoritative, trusting source.

They seemed to "get" this. Good. They said they were working on the problem.  Good.

Crisis and embarrassment averted.

Then they reversed course in their messaging.  Maybe they realized that the disparity in subscriber prices was so extreme, and the problem so intractable or expensive to fix, that they had to switch messages. Maybe they realize that the process will take years, not weeks, and they will be sending out invoices with huge disparities for years. Maybe, on reflection, they really believe the Tribune's policy results in perfectly acceptable, reasonable subscription prices and they have nothing to apologize for.  Maybe I just made them angry and they thought hitting me would be useful. I don't know why they changed.  But I noticed a new approach: to minimize the problem and treat the messenger as the problem.  Here is what I see:

1.  Change their message to denial and minimization.  Say everybody does it, and they are no worse than any other subscription service. Pretend the discounts are short term, not multi-year. Don't rock the boat.

2.  Say that their subscribers do not have an expectation that the Tribune be uniquely trustworthy in its business practices. Say readers are vigilant. Say a person paying three times what their neighbor pays knows exactly what is going on, and if he isn't complaining must be content. Buyer-beware relates to Tribune subscribers just like any other subscription service, and any suggestion to the contrary is "offensive."  In short: say it is the subscriber who is responsible for the price he or she pays.

3.  Attack the messenger.  Don't believe him or his data. Click. The editor really slams me.

4.  Hint at a punitive way to address the problem, one that could be blamed on the messenger.  "I doubt our longtime subscribers, including you, would like us to suddenly raise all their subscription rates to full price."  I wonder what she wanted me to think about that sentence. I took it as a warning. (email from editor Cathy Noah to me, 9:17 a.m., March 23.]

5. Threaten lawsuits. "We are turning this matter over to our lawyers."  [email from editor Cathy Noah to me, 11:13 a.m. March 23.]

Unfortunate crisis management.  The extraordinary editorial elevated the visibility of the issue, accelerated their word-of-mouth problem, and now makes it harder for the Tribune to return to the positioning they surely want: to look like the mature, earnest, trustworthy community resource, that wants to do the right thing in every arena, both journalistic and in business practice. 

It is not too late for the editor or owner to do that, but now they do it as evolution from a published position of anger and denial and the context of being just another subscription service with aggressive practices. They may choose to return to the "we are earnestly gong to fix this" approach. I hope so.  Or they may continue to dig their hole even deeper by sounding angry and defensive. 

Lawsuit. Nothing yet. A lawsuit by the Tribune against this blog would be an extraordinary opportunity for citizens here in the Valley and nationwide to learn more about the First Amendment.  Newspaper vs. citizen blogger might make some new First Amendment case law. Trial testimony by the Tribune editors and business staff would give citizens insight into the Tribune's subscription practices. Testimony from subscribers paying very different rates would teach lessons on what improves--or undermines--newspaper credibility.  Overall, it would be a huge learning experience.  I will keep readers informed.

The community is far better off with a strong community newspaper.  Its reputation for handling the truth responsibly is the centerpiece of its brand. I am hopeful that the Tribune can fulfill that mission, which it can do best when its subscription practices add to its credibility as a trusted community institution. 

I feel like I am doing my part in that journey. I recognize the Tribune disagrees.