Change at Salon

Typical hippie Salon reader

Founder of Salon Is Passing the Mouse
By DAVID CARR

David Talbot, a pioneer of online journalism who founded Salon magazine in 1995, will announce today that he is stepping down as the magazine's editor in chief, chief executive and relentless cheerleader. He will be replaced as editor, he said, by Joan Walsh, his longtime deputy.

Salon will also announce its first profitable quarter in its history, Mr. Talbot added, a profit of $400,000 on revenues of $2.2 million. The company also said that Elizabeth Hambrecht, Salon's president, would become its chief executive.

Salon has its headquarters in San Francisco, so the fact that it has had a long, strange trip makes sense. Four years after it began publishing, the Web site announced an era-appropriate initial public offering in June 1999, and saw its stock soar to a high of $15.13 in July of that year. Salon lived up to some of the journalistic hype, but it has had a tortured business history that includes several cash infusions from investors more interested in Salon's liberal political agenda than in getting a return on their money; on Wednesday, its stock was trading at 14 cents a share. But $50 million later, it is also beginning to show at least some signs of business life, with revenues from a combination of subscribers - 88,000 people who pay an average of $30 a year, the company says - and a share of the growing Internet advertising market. The future of one of the Web's premier brands that was perpetually in danger of ending up in the recycle bin seems assured.
................................

"There is still a need for fearless, independent journalism," Ms. Walsh said. "But we have some of the best book and television coverage there is. I want us to be helpful in figuring where the Democrats go next, but I also want us to be the ones to tell you why 'America's Top Model' is the best show on television."

Ms. Walsh said she would preside over a redesign that emphasizes the broader content of the site, as opposed to just featuring the story of the day. But the political DNA of the site will remain: one big item on her to-do list is "holding the Bush administration accountable."

Historically, political and opinion magazines, print or digital, have been money losers, and Salon has been no exception. After many twists and turns in its business approach, Salon has become something of a hybrid - part NPR and part advertising vehicle. Salon has found a measure of stability by extracting revenues from loyal subscribers and allowing visitors - through a so-called site pass - to read the content if they are willing to sit through an ad first.

"I think that when we went to a subscription model, we lost a lot of casual readers," Ms. Walsh said. "My job is to get people's awareness up and let them know that you can read Salon for free."

Salon claims to have 3.4 million readers who visit the site every month, but it is not the buzz bomb of journalism it was when it was free. Slate, which was sold last year to the Washington Post Company, gave the subscription model a go a few years ago and threw up its hands. Now that advertising dollars are rushing toward the Web, it will be interesting to see whether Salon continues to charge at the door or will fling open the gates in pursuit of big audience numbers to sell to advertisers. Ms. Hambrecht said she and Ms. Walsh were being handed a stable, going concern that needed a bit of work.

"Salon has been a success from a journalistic and artistic point of view," she said. "We have been and will continue to focus on making this a business."

Ad sales have more than doubled in the last year, and revenues were up 69 percent, from $1.3 million in the quarter that ended in December 2003, to $2.2 million in the same quarter this year. And Salon's marginal profit of $400,000 is a marked improvement from last year's loss of $1.2 million. In addition, subscriptions grew over the past year by 16,000. Clearly, Salon - give or take the $50 million to get there - has found some business traction.

And just because he is stepping down as the editor in chief and chief executive, Mr. Talbot is not relinquishing his pompoms.

"I still feel this whole messianic vision," he said. "At its best, Salon is not only progressive and crusading, but also running stories about sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll. A lot of that joyful spirit has been trashed by recent events, and I think Salon will play a role in reviving it."

Salon's problems come down to very uneven writing and way too much bashing from their writers.

Michelle Goldberg wrote a series of absolutely ridiculous articles on the RNC predicting violence when the local papers predicted no such thing.Farhad Manjoo went after the Kos Doazen without realizing that the goal was less to win than to be competative. A lot of the races would have been landslides. And blaming a blog for picking loser candidates is well, silly. All they did was funnel cash. That's not enough to win. It's just enough for a chance to win.

I think Salon's writing has become far more professional since the 1990's, where conflicts of interest were the rule of the day. But, like Slate, which is pretty much irrelevant to day to day news coverage, much of what Salon used to do is now done better by blogs. The Hyde furor caused a lot of gun shyness which caused them to change their tone.

But if someone were to ask me how to describe Salon, it would be hard. Because the magazine is still unfocused in some key ways. First and foremost, it cannot decide if it's Utne Reader or Rolling Stone. When it did sex, it ran stories from a working hooker of a frightening level of amorality. Then it did naked pictures before they settled down and got serious. No hookers, no porn, and no more "I love Apple and the turds from Steve Jobs ass."

I miss some of their tech coverage, because it was pretty good when it didn't have an agenda or carry water for Apple.

The core problem is that as it's coverage moved eastward, it's still based in SF and the step child of W.R. Hambrecht, the left coast brokers. San Francisco may be the worst journalism city in the country. Salon's continued presence there may suit the founders, but it lacks the insider knowledge of the DC-based sites and the pop and crackle of the NY-based sites. Most of Salon's main stories are DC based, but the home office is in SF, which is a real handicap. The editorial mind set is different, and much of Salon's slackness comes from an editorial management 3,000 miles away from the action.

One of the best magazines at their height was Rolling Stone. It still runs amazing stories, but when Tim Crouse and Hunter Thompson ran the copy, they were phenominal. But it was that coverage which made Jann Wenner realize that he had to move the company east. He had to be closer to the action.

But to be fair, Salon is also victim to the increasing partisan nature of reporting. People want to crusade, they don't want to reflect. They want clear political lines.

Now, unlike Slate, Salon has never been blessed with good management. The early managers were greedy and sloppy and didn't want to be called on it.

But now I think Salon is at a crossroads. It needs a more web friendly redesign, a site once renowned for its design is several years behind. But more importantly. Walsh needs to hire a real, hard-core newsie to push stories. When Salon is following Kos, as it has Josh Marshall and Atrios, and only
Marshall is a reporter, it means Salon's editors aren't sharpnosed enough. Salon, with money, staff and time, should be leading, not following. They should be far more aggressive in reporting stories than they are.

It also needs to decide which editorial direction it wants to go in. Cary Tennis is simply horrible, but picking om him can wait for another day. There should be a real evaluation about all the columns and how they fit into the scheme of the site. What is Salon and why should I read it is the core question.

For Salon to succeed in the era of blogs, it has to find a fast ship and go into harm's way. If Juan Cole can do it, why not Salon?

posted by Steve @ 1:47:00 AM