More WaPo Thoughts
It's bad business to alienate key customers.
James Joyner beat me to posting about the current lay-offs at WaPo, but let me add to the conversation.
One key thought keeps rolling around in my head about the paper’s current situation: pissing off one of your core customer segments was a bad business move. And among the many things that Bezos is responsible for, that is a central part of this story.
Look, I thoroughly understand the problems facing journalism these days, and newspapers in particular. I understand the Post was already in trouble when Bezos bought it, and that the paper’s current business ills are not all his fault.
But.
But there is little doubt that one of the core constituencies within the paper’s subscriber base was college-educated, likely liberal-leaning voters who were concerned about the direction of the federal government under Trump and who wanted serious, forthright journalism that would hold a possible second Trump term to task. You know, the kind of people who liked the adoption of the phrase “Democracy Dies in Darkness.”
However, Bezos sent a number of signals as Trump 2.0 was approaching that the paper was not going to be a forthright defender of democracy. For example, the decision 11 days before the election to issue a policy that the paper would not issue endorsements for elected office any longer, even as the editorial board had drafted a Harris endorsement, was a signal to that end.
I will readily agree that there might well be some logic to stopping the tradition of endorsements, which rarely seem to matter in any event. Having no endorsement was not the issue; the issue was the timing of the decision and the signal of taking a pro-Trump stance on the issue. Or, perhaps more to the main point I am making, if some of your subscribers think that a second Trump administration would be an assault on democracy, then the move on endorsements at that moment came across as a signal about Bezos’ shifting attitudes on Trump. At the time, it certainly felt like a Bezos obeying in advance, which was also the vibe of his and other techbros’ contributions to Trump’s inauguration.
Then came a number of high-profile resignations, with editorial cartoonist Ann Telnaes’ resignation being one that really sticks in my mind (linked to the techbros contributions noted above). But I would note also Robert Kagan’s resignation over the endorsement issue and
All of this was soon followed by the shift on the editorial page to focus on “personal liberties and free markets,” which, in turn, led to Ruth Marcus’ resignation. Certainly, my interpretation at the time was that Bezos wanted to turn away from discussions of Trump’s assault on democracy and good governance. And it was clearly what a lot of subscribers at the time thought, given the round of cancellations that followed.
Somewhere in all of that mess in early 2025, I decided to cancel my subscription as well, and have only occasionally noticed since.
I am not saying that all of this is the reason for the predicament the paper is in. Again, I understand, as well as a non-expert can, the challenges facing newspapers. Further, I am not trained in business, but I know enough to know that a struggling business should avoid pissing off a core part of its customer base. This was obvious to me a year ago.
By the way, I can certainly understand things like cutting sports, among other cuts. But I think that the core problem, and why this feels a bit like a death spiral to me, is that Bezos has damaged the paper’s reputation to the kinds of people he needs to subscribe. Not only does he need college-educated, left-of-center readers who value good journalism, but it also isn’t like he is going to make up the difference with MAGA types, as they will continue to hold the “mainstream media” in contempt.
I just remain more than a bit amazed at how stupid the last year or so has been in terms of the moves he has made with the paper.
I guess being a billionaire doesn’t mean you are a genius about everything after all.
Who knew?
I would also recommend this morning’s edition of The Daily: Bezos Guts The Washington Post.
What’s happening to the Post is what Bezos wants to happen.
The federal government, headed by Trump, is a big Amazon customer, also involved in regulations etc. that affect Amazon.
My guess is not pissing off Trump is a higher priority than staying popular with Washington Post core customers.
Come on. The Broligarchs are always right. Otherwise they wouldn’t be so rich.
Why, Adolf Muxk himself was so successful in alienating his core customers, that he no longer even needs to make cars in his Texla car factories!
Possibly worth noting that operating a newspaper catering to degreed left-of-center subscribers these days comes with a bigger business risk than a $100M normal operating loss: defending, and possibly losing, billion dollar lawsuits from Trump. While Bezos owns the paper through a limited-liability holding company, that may not be adequate protection to avoid being on the hook personally.
@Steven
I fully agree with that. Like it or not, there’s always capture of some sort. When the paper was subsidized by ads, it couldn’t piss off advertisers too much. Now, they can’t afford to piss off the ideological cohort that buys subscriptions.
But@charontwo: @Michael Cain really get at this pretty well:
The paper is, at best, a hobby. Amazon—and AWS—are core businesses. In the current atmosphere, he can’t afford to alienate the Trump administration.
Why he capitulated before the election even happened, though, I can’t explain.
I like to think that if I was worth $250B I would maintain my set of core values and do something to benefit society, even if it meant it cost me $100M a year. Heck, I would do it even if I was worth a measly $1B. I guess that’s what separates today’s filthy rich from the ones 100+ years ago who built libraries and charitable foundations.
@James Joyner:
This just doesn’t ring true to me. The man is worth $250B. And just what possible price could the Trump admin make his businesses pay? It just sounds like you’re justifying his pathetic capitulation and his greed.
ETA:
BTW, I understand that the government is a big customer of AWS. Yes, losing that contract would be huge. Is it really not worth the fight to take them to court because the contract might be canceled because of Trump’s pettiness? (I’m sure it would not be easy to outright cancel all government contracts at this point, though.)
Bezos runs more than one business. The WAPO is not the important to him. He understood that for his other businesses to do well, to avoid bogus DOJ investigations and lawsuits, he needed to at least not be on Trump’s bad side and then he went whole hog and made the Melania movie. From my POV it’s hard to blame the guy as it certainly looks like sucking up to Trump mostly works.
Steve
This is somewhat backwards given that China is eating America’s lunch on building data centers. Bezos has the power over Trump since the new economy is all about data centers and electricity. Great article in this weeks Wired about all the Chinese investments going on in America right under our noses.
@reid:
There’s a strong correlation between getting rich and having no core values except greed and solipsism.
@gVOR10: That certainly seems to be the case anymore. As I mentioned, at least the old robber barons did a lot of good with their wealth.
This is yet another result of Trump’s enshittification of our society from the very top.
I suppose I’m part of the core constituency subscriber base Dr. Taylor is talking about. Almost 50 years ago (God I’m old) I had a poli sci professor who required us to read a national newspaper every day. No Kansas City Times or KC Star, he made a point of saying–if you absolutely insisted you could read the St. Louis Post Dispatch, but really he wanted something comparable to the NY Times, The Washington Post, or the Wall Street Journal, and he made it clear that he didn’t think there was anything else comparable to those three. Those were the glory days of All the President’s Men, so the Post was an easy choice for me.
My fond feelings for the Post remained after graduation, much more so than for the Times. (Although I subscribe to the digital edition of the Times, I’ve never really been a fan–the idea that it was liberal always seemed like a bad joke to me when it so clearly seemed to be corporatist, not truly left wing. I generally respected it, but never loved it.) I was disappointed with the changes Bezos made to the Post since the Trump reboot, but kept my subscription because I thought the journalism outside of the editorial page was still worth reading and supporting. But the most recent round has proved too much for me to stomach, so this week I canceled my Washington Post subscription. I can’t imagine cancellations make any difference to Bezos but I just couldn’t see any reason to send money to a news organization that didn’t want to pay reporters.
I wish I thought the loss of business from people like me mattered, or that there were enough of us to make someone else pick up the baton and give the kind of support to real reporting that the Post used to give. But I don’t.
What’s really hilarious about the Bezos Post is that just about every day sees a new editorial on some subject, the real message of which is “no one must ever ever ever ever ever tax billionaires.”
It makes me wonder if Bezos is as thin-skinned as Trump, or if he just hired a publisher who thinks he is.
Oh, and three times a week they publish an editorial slamming Mamdani for some new reason, because obviously the government of New York City is of prime interest to readers of the Washington Post…