10at10 Club
Main Discussion Area => Stream of Consciousness => Topic started by: RGMike on June 30, 2005, 07:41:30 AM
-
I couldn't find a link to the story, but KFOG reported this morning that BGP/Clear Channel has sold naming rights to the Warfield to SF weekly; in return the Warfield will advertise its shows in the Weekly ONLY. The Guardian is pissed.
-
I couldn't find a link to the story, but KFOG reported this morning that BGP/Clear Channel has sold naming rights to the Warfield to SF weekly; in return the Warfield will advertise its shows in the Weekly ONLY. The Guardian is pissed.
What a bad, bad business decision on the part of the Warfield management. People don't want to choose between papers just to get show information. If anything this'll only damage awareness of, and thus attendance at, Warfield shows.
The SFBG should respond by ceasing to review shows at the venue. If artists express unwillingness to be booked there on grounds of insufficient media coverage, that agreement will be rethought. At least that's my hunch.
-
all about the mighty dollar. How long before the GG Bridge sells naming rights? Seriously.
-
all about the mighty dollar. How long before the GG Bridge sells naming rights? Seriously.
That's what the SFBG should do, agreed to fund the eastern span of the San Francisco Bay Guardian Bridge!
Why has no one thought of this before?
-
all about the mighty dollar. How long before the GG Bridge sells naming rights? Seriously.
That's what the SFBG should do, agreed to fund the eastern span of the San Francisco Bay Guardian Bridge!
Why has no one thought of this before?
"Drive on my bridge, Dammit!"
Unfortunately Bruce Brugmann, the Guardian's owner, is actually just as cheap as anyone at Clear Channel. He just puts up a better champion-of-the-downtrodden front.
-
I couldn't find a link to the story, but KFOG reported this morning that BGP/Clear Channel has sold naming rights to the Warfield to SF weekly; in return the Warfield will advertise its shows in the Weekly ONLY. The Guardian is pissed.
What a bad, bad business decision on the part of the Warfield management. People don't want to choose between papers just to get show information. If anything this'll only damage awareness of, and thus attendance at, Warfield shows.
The SFBG should respond by ceasing to review shows at the venue. If artists express unwillingness to be booked there on grounds of insufficient media coverage, that agreement will be rethought. At least that's my hunch.
I think that's jounalistically unethical, but far from unusual. If the BG refuses to review important shows, it just becomes less important.
-
I couldn't find a link to the story, but KFOG reported this morning that BGP/Clear Channel has sold naming rights to the Warfield to SF weekly; in return the Warfield will advertise its shows in the Weekly ONLY. The Guardian is pissed.
What a bad, bad business decision on the part of the Warfield management. People don't want to choose between papers just to get show information. If anything this'll only damage awareness of, and thus attendance at, Warfield shows.
I fully agree, by limiting Warfield advertising to the Weekly, thus eliminating the Guardian and the Sunday Chron (both of which, have siginificantly greater circulation than the Weakly), they're going to have significantly LESS public awareness of their bookings. And yeah, it will probably mean some shows won't sell out that otherwise could have.
Those morons in Texas have no effin' CLUE about how to run an entertainment business. That's not news by any stretch; this is just more evidence to support it.
-
I couldn't find a link to the story, but KFOG reported this morning that BGP/Clear Channel has sold naming rights to the Warfield to SF weekly; in return the Warfield will advertise its shows in the Weekly ONLY. The Guardian is pissed.
What a bad, bad business decision on the part of the Warfield management. People don't want to choose between papers just to get show information. If anything this'll only damage awareness of, and thus attendance at, Warfield shows.
The SFBG should respond by ceasing to review shows at the venue. If artists express unwillingness to be booked there on grounds of insufficient media coverage, that agreement will be rethought. At least that's my hunch.
I think that's jounalistically unethical, but far from unusual. If the BG refuses to review important shows, it just becomes less important.
You're right, but then the agreement the Weekly has entered into is also questionable. And what percentage of shows at the Warfield qualify as "important", in any case? The SFBG should refer to it as "the venue formerly called the Warfield".
-
Just checked the BGP site to see if they had a press release or something on this. Negatory, but in the banner across the top of the front page where they list upcoming shows, there it was:
7/22 Alkaline Trio SF Weekly Warfield
Stupid fucking Texans.
-
Stupid fucking Texans.
Hey, it's the land of Take Your Gun To Work & Drive-Thru Liquor Stores.
But I have a lot of friends in Texas, even a couple self-described rednecks.
-
I was born in El Paso. Granted- it was at Fort Bliss to parents from Brooklyn. But, thereyago.
-
Stupid fucking Texans.
Hey, it's the land of Take Your Gun To Work & Drive-Thru Liquor Stores.
But I have a lot of friends in Texas, even a couple self-described rednecks.
your new sig is quite appropriate to any discussion of Texas!
-
your new sig is quite appropriate to any discussion of Texas!
That's from The Michael Stanley Band's first album, "Let's Get the Show on the Road."
-
I couldn't find a link to the story, but KFOG reported this morning that BGP/Clear Channel has sold naming rights to the Warfield to SF weekly; in return the Warfield will advertise its shows in the Weekly ONLY. The Guardian is pissed.
What a bad, bad business decision on the part of the Warfield management. People don't want to choose between papers just to get show information. If anything this'll only damage awareness of, and thus attendance at, Warfield shows.
The SFBG should respond by ceasing to review shows at the venue. If artists express unwillingness to be booked there on grounds of insufficient media coverage, that agreement will be rethought. At least that's my hunch.
I think that's jounalistically unethical, but far from unusual. If the BG refuses to review important shows, it just becomes less important.
I think "unethical" is a bit much -- it's not a news blackout, it's just entertainment, and a publication always has editorial leeway insofar as which concerts to cover. The Voice, f'rex, often ignores big-name shows in favor of personal favorites or shows that give the author a chance to riff on a separate/related topic. If something big happens at the Warf (such as a Dead Kennedys reunion), the SFBG ignores it at its own peril -- but within its own right. But it is an interesting thing to consider.
-
Stupid fucking Texans.
Hey, it's the land of Take Your Gun To Work & Drive-Thru Liquor Stores.
But I have a lot of friends in Texas, even a couple self-described rednecks.
I should probably clarify: not all Texans are stupid, but it sure seems like the ones who rise to control various corporations (Clear Channel, Enron, oh, and our country) sure as hell are.
-
I couldn't find a link to the story, but KFOG reported this morning that BGP/Clear Channel has sold naming rights to the Warfield to SF weekly; in return the Warfield will advertise its shows in the Weekly ONLY. The Guardian is pissed.
What a bad, bad business decision on the part of the Warfield management. People don't want to choose between papers just to get show information. If anything this'll only damage awareness of, and thus attendance at, Warfield shows.
The SFBG should respond by ceasing to review shows at the venue. If artists express unwillingness to be booked there on grounds of insufficient media coverage, that agreement will be rethought. At least that's my hunch.
I think that's jounalistically unethical, but far from unusual. If the BG refuses to review important shows, it just becomes less important.
I think "unethical" is a bit much -- it's not a news blackout, it's just entertainment, and a publication always has editorial leeway insofar as which concerts to cover. The Voice, f'rex, often ignores big-name shows in favor of personal favorites or shows that give the author a chance to riff on a separate/related topic. If something big happens at the Warf (such as a Dead Kennedys reunion), the SFBG ignores it at its own peril -- but within its own right. But it is an interesting thing to consider.
Let me fill you in on why this point of view is familiar to me. In my past life as an instrument maker, I would always come up against the 'play for pay' magazines who would write up lesser manufacturers because they were advertisers. I'm not naïve enough (although I've demonstrated my gullibility here many times) to think this doesn't go on, or isn't the way much of 'how things get done,' but the leading magazines at the time, Guitar Player and Bass Player, would cover me whether or not I was advertising, and they never ran these fawning reviews the other rags did.
So, you can see why I feel this is unethical. I hate calling it SBC park, and we never liked 3Com, but that's the way things work these days. I don't think much will come of it. The BG and SFW are minor players.
-
From SFGate, dated 6/29:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/06/29/BUG6BDG8HI1.DTL
-
Another chapter in this ludicrous saga:
Apparently the braintrust at Clear Channel didn't bother to ask their landlord if it was OK to change the name of the theater. And now they're getting sued.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/15/BAGR4F8MNM1.DTL
Oh, and they won't be running the Warfield after 2007 anyway: before they sold the building earlier this year, the Fang family refused to renew Clear Channel's lease and awarded it to another group. That's covered in the story above too. Oops.
-
Another chapter in this ludicrous saga:
Apparently the braintrust at Clear Channel didn't bother to ask their landlord if it was OK to change the name of the theater. And now they're getting sued.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/15/BAGR4F8MNM1.DTL
Oh, and they won't be running the Warfield after 2007 anyway: before they sold the building earlier this year, the Fang family refused to renew Clear Channel's lease and awarded it to another group. That's covered in the story above too. Oops.
Where did the Fang family get all this money? Those are the same folks who pulled off the heist of the Examiner, right? ("We'll give you $10 million dollars to run this paper into the ground so that we can start it over from scratch")
-
Another chapter in this ludicrous saga:
Apparently the braintrust at Clear Channel didn't bother to ask their landlord if it was OK to change the name of the theater. And now they're getting sued.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/15/BAGR4F8MNM1.DTL
Oh, and they won't be running the Warfield after 2007 anyway: before they sold the building earlier this year, the Fang family refused to renew Clear Channel's lease and awarded it to another group. That's covered in the story above too. Oops.
Where did the Fang family get all this money? Those are the same folks who pulled off the heist of the Examiner, right? ("We'll give you $10 million dollars to run this paper into the ground so that we can start it over from scratch")
They got a lot more than 10 mil -- more like 60, iirc.