San Diego Union-Tribune Sabotages LA Times Home Delivery

The new look of the LA Times -- around my house

Usually I write about San Diego County amusements in this blog, and it just occurred to me that I’ve long put my home subscription to the Los Angeles Times in that category. The pleasure of opening my front door before dawn and finding great investigative reports, great entertainment-industry gossip, great food and health writing, all printed out and lying on my front lawn, has been intense (even if the LAT rarely if ever writes about San Diego County leisure diversions). Now, sadly, that particular pleasure has ended, at least for me.

I initially explained why in a letter I wrote on July 30 and sent to four of the LAT’s top executives.  I told them I was writing to thank you for making it easier for me to cancel my subscription to the Los Angeles Times, and then continued as follows: 

I don’t remember when I first began subscribing, but I’m sure it was more than 30 years ago. I have loved the paper passionately ever since. I long considered the LA Times to be among the very best newspapers in the world.

Because I’ve been a journalist all my life, I have understood why both the content and physical size of the paper have shrunk in recent years. The Internet has challenged all traditional journals and journalists.  Even as the LA Times has become a shadow of its former self, I’ve still loved much about it, from the wonderful scoops like the recent reporting on the City of Bell, to the entertainment coverage, to the food section, and more. I’ve told myself I should cancel and get my news from the growing number of sources online.  But I’ve been emotionally unable to do so.

The recent change in delivery services to the San Diego area has finally made it possible for me to make the break.  After not receiving my paper on 4 days out of the past week, it has finally begun arriving around 7:30 (much later than I am accustomed to).  Responses to my inquiries have been non-existent to lackadaisical.  As I’ve looked at my account, I’ve also realized I’m now being billed more than $400 a year, whereas home-delivery subscriptions are being advertised (online) for only about $155 a year.

The pricing issue is merely irritating.  (In reward for my longtime loyalty, I’m being gouged.) The late and missing papers are intolerable, however.  I have informed the subscription department to cancel my subscription and refund me the unfilled portion.

If you are not the person responsible for driving me away, please forward this letter to whoever is.  I hope he has saved the Times a little money.  I want him to know that this move was also the dromedarial straw on my long-suffering and loyal back.  But I also will be saving quite a bit with my cancellation, and for that, I want to thank him.  

This week, I received the following response from Russ Newton, the Times’ senior vice president of Operations and Home Delivery.  Your letter dated July 30 was entertaining and well written, he began. I thought you would enjoy having some facts.

We are not trying to get you to cancel your subscription.

You are not being gouged. Physically transporting a newspaper from our plant to your home 114 miles away is an expensive proposition. Indeed, even with the full rate you and other subscribers pay in San Diego, we still lose money on each and every paper we deliver and gain little, if any benefit from advertisers because San Diego is not our core market.

The recent change in delivery service was not of our choosing. The vendor (San Diego Union Tribune) that was delivering the Los Angeles Times to you every day on our behalf had notified us that they now required LAT to deliver papers to them at 11pm the day before. We go to press at 11:40 pm and then need to drive 120 miles to the Union Tribune so they can deliver our papers. That clearly wouldn’t work. So, we invested a large sum of money to start up our own home delivery network in San Diego so our customers in that area could continue to receive the paper. When you start up a new delivery network, there is a negative impact to customer service. In this case, I don’t know what else we could have done. SDUT forced our hand, we had to start a network and do our best to improve delivery as fast as we can. In your case, we failed.

So, I am responsible for the change that caused us to have delivery issues. I hope you now understand that the goal was not to drive you away…

If you ever change your mind about subscribing, please let me know and I will take care of it for you.

I’ve just mailed this reply to Mr. Newton:

Thank you for your letter of August 5. It was courteous and well written.

In answer to your implicit question about “what else you could have done” to make the change in delivery service here easier, I can testify that had you earlier shared some of the facts outlined in your letter, I would have had more patience with the transition (and an even worse opinion of the folks now running the Union-Trib). I might not have canceled my LAT subscription.

At the same time, knowing as I now do that the LAT was losing money on me even though I was paying the highest delivery rate disturbs me. If my readership also offers “little if any benefit” to your advertisers, why should the LAT serve San Diego home-delivery subscribers at all? Out of altruism? Tradition? The blind hope that somehow, some day a new business model will emerge?

That makes no sense. It confirms my decision to cancel my subscription: after all those years of great journalism, should I not do whatever I can, however small, to help the LAT reduce its current losses?

Reading the LAT on my i-Pad leaves much to be desired. If you guys ever figure out a way of making that easier, I would certainly consider paying something for that.

Good luck.