Protesting For Lileks Is, ... Um, Sorry, Dumb

I think James Lileks deserves a good job doing what he wants and it might be a good idea for someone in media to take a look at him, assuming he's actually looking, as he is still employed. I could say that about some others and other fields, too. But I won't.

I didn't see much complaint when almost the very same thing happened to Gail Shister who was, in the sense of media, a much larger force. This is a trend, people - and it's far from over. You helped bring it about.

But this would be protest coming from, of all places, new media on the Right strikes me as misguided, if not just dumb. Should Captain Ed's call center employer have changed their business model instead of losing him to new media? I don't think so. Old and new media are not simply the same thing for a host of reasons.

Hot Air:

For a long time he did have an indispensable(sic) political column with New house News Service (ha, no link, losers) that, a couple of weeks ago, was abruptly dispensed.
And now his home paper, the Minneapolis Star Tribune (likewise), has decided that since they have in Lilacs a nationally-known top-notch bestselling humor writer and political commentator, they ... decided to kill his humor column (the “Quirk”) and move him into news reporting, covering the sparkling Minneapolis Internet scene.

Hugh Hewitt:

Let's see.  Your circulation is crashing.  The value of your paper has plummeted.  Everyone in the industry recognizes that the the future is on line, and most realize that the byline has become the brand and that writers with followings will be a crucial part of the rescue of the bottom line.

So what does the Minneapolis Star Tribune do? 

I kid you not: They kill Wilek's column and send him to report news.  Visit www.lileks.com for details. 

Imagine The New Yorker asking E.B. White to manage the restaurant listings. Envision the Laos Angeles Times dropping Jim Murray from Sports and sending him to cover county government(sic). Think about the Sana Francisco Chronicle assigning Herb Cane to the police blotter.  It is that level stupid.  (BTW: The Charon is still using Herb's stuff  --it is the byline business.)

I understand Lileks is considered extremely talented by many in the Right biosphere. I think he is, too - though with apologies, the E. B. White comparison is, well, I'll leave it there. But I also have to confess to not reading Lileks very much, not because he isn't incredibly talented - his content didn't interest me enough.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune has a local print market to serve with ... news. That's its bread and butter. So, they took one of perhaps their more talented resources and shifted him to that cause, most likely while letting some lesser talents go. And for that the people who believe in capitalism and new media want to pressure the paper to let James Lileks do what he wants to do?

So, I assume if any of you ever get elected to Washington, will you be pushing corporate welfare and France-like jobs for life, too? My, how our ideas change and principles fade so quickly when it's one of our own oxen being gored.

There are no traffic stats for Lileks, so far as I know. And aren't we talking business ... old media and its problems here? Problems directly created by some of the very so-called conservative bloggers now arguing one of theirs should be spared an indignity despite the market shift? Or that they know so much about old media business models and the measures required to alter focus to on line, they're qualified to lecture the Stribs CFO?

You can't have it both ways. Lileks world is shifting and I suspect, because he is so talented, he'll do just fine. He'd better. Just as I have to compete against young guns out of business schools, there are plenty of young guns out of J school who would probably take his new assignment at a cut.

With the talent and name recognition Lileks has now, he may well be able to launch a new independent on line media career and make whatever his job at the Strib is and pays look like a joke. That's the advice I'd be offering him if he asked. The world of media is changing and woe unto those who think old media dinosaurs can simply turn around, or want to spend their own time looking back because in one case it might suit.

You break it you bought it, folks. That applies to Iraq and, thanks to bloggers, to old media business models, too. Given Lileks blogging focus and considerable talent, I hardly think the Minneapolis Star Tribune was ever the place where he'd most realize it, assuming he even wants to go that route. Would you?

Comments

[docweasel]

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/main?q=lileks.com&url=lileks.com/

I have to disagree with you here Dan. Lileks is a unique writer, I can't think of anyone on the scene quite like him these days. His mix of nostalgia and old news mixed with what's happening today is something special.

[ts]

Christ, it pains me to say it: right on the money.

[Dan Riehl]

"Lileks is a unique writer"

I'm not saying he isn't dw. All I am saying is, that does not dictate that the Strib is obligated to bring that part of his talent to the masses. And I'm not at all suggesting he isn't deserving of having his talent delivered via another media outlet more in line with that element of his work. Apples and oranges.

[Fred Beloit]

If Lileks is as good as doc says and he doesn't like his job, he is quite free to find another. What part of "employment at will" (a two-way street) is so hard for folks to understand?

[Chap]

That would make sense if you weren't in the business of making money.

See, the Strib had a useful asset they wasted.

Let me try a lame analogy. I don't like Eric Clapton that much. Other people do, but not me. But this does not keep me from seeing that Clapton's back catalog and new records are moneymakers. If I were a capitalist with Clapton in my stable, I know I wouldn't be able to develop him correctly because I don't like his guitar playing.

But this does not mean I put him doing janitor work if he's not that good a janitor. What it means is that I either set up an imprint with people who dig Clapton enough to develop that sweet, sweet money so I can buy a Bentley with an 8 track player, or I trade him to someone who values Clapton more and get either a trade or more SSMSICBABWA8TP. Either way I get to ride down the road at 5MPG with Muddy Waters going "kerchunk" every ten minutes, dig?

If I put Clapton on janitor duty I get clean enough floors, an unhappy janitor...and lose out on a buy when he's hired out from under me by Sony.

This is why putting Lileks on Scooter Scoop beat is teh stupid. They could have just let him go which would have gost money, sure. They could also have figured out how to make this be a winning deal if they only understood what they had. This isn't just about Lileks getting shafted--it's a dumb business move.

[Chap]

(I even previewed and missed a point!)

The protest idea? Not so useful, and in that I agree. Businesses can be as stupid as they want. But a recognition that they lost out is probably worth it.

[Dan Riehl]

"the Strib had a useful asset they wasted"

See, here is where I disagree. They have a "valuable" asset in Lileks. But they lack the vehicle and, I'd guess, capital to "capitalize" on it. Look at Hot Air. I would guess it is the best new Right-side thing on line and, hopefully, does quite well with adverts and all. But do you think rolling it into the Strib would somehow impact its bottom line? It wouldn't help, it would actually hurt, as it would cost the Strb more in start up costs and such than it did Michelle. They are union, I believe.

I am making no argument as to Lileks "worth." But in a money making sense, assets are only "valuable" when they can be exploited.

[Fred Beloit]

Chap, "Well you know I'm here, EVERYBODY knows I'm here. I'm the Hoochie Coochie Man, EVERYBODY knows I'm here." Everybody now knows Lileks is probably available. Maybe someone will make him an offer. Dig?

[Doug]

Holy crap, I actually agree with Dan Riehl on something.

I'll give you the non-minced-words version of "his content didn't interest me enough": Lileks is borrrrring. Michael-Bolton-lecturing-on-multivariable-calculus boring. I'm flabbergasted that more people don't understand why the Star-Tribune might not want to give someone dozens of column-inches to ramble on about their shopping trips to Target.

[Jim]

Are those typos cribbed directly from Hot Air, or was the entry just typed in a hurry?

(For some reason, Dan, I give you a pass on typos. HotAir? Not so much...

[Dan Riehl]

the quotes were as lifted I altered nothing.

[Dan Riehl]

I just looked, they corrected it. I copied and pasted the text word for word. I did not type anything. But it was a guest blogger, See Dub I think.

[Dan Riehl]

Also, I don't think it a big deal either way, I sometimes edit again post publish. I guess that's what was done there.

[Mike]

Dan:
I don't get your point about people abandoning principle to complain about Lileks' "demotion." I mean this stuff:

"So, I assume if any of you ever get elected to Washington, will you be pushing corporate welfare and France-like jobs for life, too? My, how our ideas change and principles fade so quickly when it's one of our own oxen being gored."

No! You have it completely 180 degrees backwards. What you say would be true IF Hewitt, Hot Air, Cap'n Ed, etc were asking for the government to intervene and "correct" this decision. They are doing something quite different, which is asking people to respond. Consumers. Us people who buy and sell things with our own god-given money! They are using their First Amendment right to speak out about a corporate decision that they think is foolish. Where is there anything hypocritical about that? People on the Right are not allowed to criticize corporations because... why? Because they are slavish toadies to corporate America? I hope you don't really think that.

It reminds me or when everybody got all up-in-arms about the criticisms the Dixie Chicks received. They'd have had a point if critics were demanding the government censor the Chicks. But having citizens spontaneously working together to express their displeasure? That's NOT censorship. It's protest, and it is as American as apple pie. Same thing is true here with Lileks.

[Jim Treacher]

Gail Shister?? Well, if caring what happens to Lileks but not Shister makes me a hypocrite, guilty as charged.

[Jimmie]

Dan, you miss the point entirely (and somehow manage to mildly insult a good number of people who did not deserve it).

You've not read much of Lileks' work so you don't know that he very much likes newspapers and the Strib in particular. He has written many times about how important he thinks the Strib is (and newspapers are in general) and wants this paper to succeed and thrive. His lament is not necessarily that he doesn't want to write news but that he's incredibly ill-suited to do so. It's a bad move for the Strib because they could have just fired him and gotten reporters who could actually write news stories better for less money.

What the Strib is doing is, as Dave Barry wrote today, tantamount to paying Dewayne Wade to sit on the bench and keep stats. I'm sure Wade could do that job well enough but it would be a horrible waste of money and talent to do that.

Lileks could, and probably will, make plenty of money in another venture. That's not the issue. The issue is that yet another newspaper is making yet another mind-numbingly stupid move that will ensure it keeps circling the drain. That's something that neither Lileks nor many of us who are writing about the story today want to see.

[Dan Riehl]

"another newspaper is making yet another mind-numbingly stupid move"

Limmie, that's all assuming the Strib is equiped to go on line and go big to reach across a larger audience. I don't believe it's their model. Lileks may want to improve the Strib. But he doesn't answer to the money. Management does. And while it is always easy to second guess them based on emotions, show me one demographic analysis that suggests he's currently valuable to the Strib as a columnist. I imagine they've been done. And if so, they are dictating this, not who or what any one person likes to read.

[Dan Riehl]

oops = Jimmie. Sorry.

[Chap]

Thanks. Man, you've been blogging up a storm this week! I go away for a few hours and boom, ninety-'leven posts!

I agree that the Strib didn't know what to do with the asset. I think our disagreement is in how they could or should have exploited the guy. Other businesses know what to do in that situation--they sell or license the asset to someone who recognizes the value or can specialize in screedy bleats or whatever. (Continuing the strained musician analogy, Bear Family Records moves units on artists nobody but a few freaks like me care about, and they do well. Same for Rhino Handmade. I think this situation is like having Michael Bolton--calculus or not--on Def Jam. Bolton has a catalog and a customer base, just not with that label's demographic.)

For instance, the Strib management could have taken a headhunter's fee or a piece of the action in order to sell him to another organization. Works for the union, makes the worker happy, makes the business look smart, and adds to the bottom line instead of ginning up bad publicity.

Doesn't work in the Navy, but then again we're not a bottom line oriented organization...

[Chap]

Fred, you're right...and the Strib lost out on a chance to capitalize on it and retire deep down in Florida, where the sun shines dang near every day. That's what I'm screamin'.