Author Topic: "The SF Weekly Warfield"  (Read 11411 times)

ggould

  • Administrator
  • Master Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 9159
    • View Profile
    • http://www.ggould.com
Re: "The SF Weekly Warfield"
« Reply #15 on: June 30, 2005, 03:13:11 PM »
Quote from: "Gaz at da Voice"
Quote from: "ggould"
Quote from: "Gazoo"
Quote from: "RGMike"
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.
Don't stand in the way of LOVE!

urth

  • The Core
  • Transcendent Typist
  • *****
  • Posts: 15274
    • View Profile
"The SF Weekly Warfield"
« Reply #16 on: June 30, 2005, 07:58:36 PM »
Let's get right to it.

urth

  • The Core
  • Transcendent Typist
  • *****
  • Posts: 15274
    • View Profile
"The SF Weekly Warfield"
« Reply #17 on: October 24, 2005, 03:17:07 PM »
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.
Let's get right to it.

Anonymous

  • Guest
"The SF Weekly Warfield"
« Reply #18 on: October 24, 2005, 06:50:22 PM »
Quote from: "urth"
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")

RGMike

  • The Core
  • Eight Miles High
  • *****
  • Posts: 79329
    • View Profile
"The SF Weekly Warfield"
« Reply #19 on: October 24, 2005, 08:31:09 PM »
Quote from: "Anonymous"
Quote from: "urth"
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.
You spin me right 'round, baby, right 'round