monopoly_money.jpgIn what looks to be the final chapter in a long and messy case, SF Weekly has announced that they’ve successfully reached a settlement in with the SF Bay Guardian. But if the tone of their announcement is any indication, their war of words is far from over.

It was the end of November when the CA State Supreme Court refused to review lower-court rulings ordering SF Weekly and its parent company, Village Voice Media, to pay $21 million in damages to its locally owned and operated competition, the SF Bay Guardian. This after a case focusing on, the SFBG successfully argued, predatory pricing practices by VVM.

As Guardian Editor Tim Redmond blogged in November, the Appeals court noted that “(w)e have before us the case of an ongoing, comprehensive, below-cost pricing scheme,” behavior barred by California’s Unfair Practices Act, which was, Redmond says, designed to protect small business from big chains.

After months of settlement negotiations, VVM’s Andy VanDeVoorde today announced (via the Weekly’s “Snitch” blog, as well as in an identical press release on VVM’s site) that as of today the two “parties have resolved and settled their differences on mutually acceptable terms” which “brings the legal action to an end. Details are not being disclosed.”

VanDeVoorde then takes the opportunity to announce that “the Weekly has continued to widen its lead over the Guardian despite the six-year legal distraction,” comparing their internal metrics (Google Analytics) for the SF Weekly site with numbers from an external auditing site (Media Audit) for the Guardian’s traffic.

If you don’t care about inside web traffic baseball, skip this graf! As anyone who follows web traffic knows, this is crap thinking — web traffic measurement tools differ greatly. For example, I could totally lie and say that the Appeal’s traffic, via web traffic tracker Sitemeter beats SFist’s, if for SFist’s numbers, I use web traffic tracker Compete.com. Instead, if you compare using the same tracker for both, a more accurate picture emerges, see SFist’s sitemeter numbers or look at both sites using Compete to see that popular, established site SFist.com has far heftier traffic than the Appeal does. (For now, at least, mua hahaha.)

The point is this: no analytics tracker is perfect, but comparing numbers using two different services to prove your point is kind of bullshit, and just seems like you’re trying to game the numbers. Especially when the analytics tool you use to gauge your competition’s numbers is based on telephone surveys, not on a counter that tracks visits to a site, as Google Analytics does. Hardly the act of an organization interested in a graceful settlement!

The Guardian’s Tim Redmond, however, wouldn’t lower himself to my bullshit-calling level, instead just telling me that, “everyone at the Guardian’s pleased, and we’ll be meeting in the coming weeks to decide our future direction.” That is, how they will spend whatever unnamed amount of money they’re getting. Redmond says he will publish a blog post on the topic later today, I’ll add a link to this post when he does. (Update: here it is!)

SF Weekly also appears hopeful for the future, as in his statement, VanDeVoorde says the Weekly “will continue business as usual.” Which, in at least the Weekly’s case, appears to be to bait the Guardian whenever possible, even as VVM grits their teeth and writes that secret settlement check.

Want more news, sent to your inbox every day? Then how about subscribing to our email newsletter? Here’s why we think you should. Come on, give it a try.

the author

Eve Batey is the editor and publisher of the San Francisco Appeal. She used to be the San Francisco Chronicle's Deputy Managing Editor for Online, and started at the Chronicle as their blogging and interactive editor. Before that, she was a co-founding writer and the lead editor of SFist. She's been in the city since 1997, presently living in the Outer Sunset with her husband, cat, and dog. You can reach Eve at eve@sfappeal.com.

Please make sure your comment adheres to our comment policy. If it doesn't, it may be deleted. Repeat violations may cause us to revoke your commenting privileges. No one wants that!
  • sfbird

    They should bankrupt Matt Smith and make him sell his possessions to help pay the settlement.

    Yeah, I know he’s not involved in the lawsuit in any way, I just want to seem him punished for his crimes as a writer.

  • sfbird

    They should bankrupt Matt Smith and make him sell his possessions to help pay the settlement.

    Yeah, I know he’s not involved in the lawsuit in any way, I just want to seem him punished for his crimes as a writer.

  • RussianHillDweller

    Finally.

    Once Bruce and Tim burn through this lottery ticket, the Weekly can go back to beating the pulp out of them and finally bankrupt this cliché-of-an-alt-weekly.

  • RussianHillDweller

    Finally.

    Once Bruce and Tim burn through this lottery ticket, the Weekly can go back to beating the pulp out of them and finally bankrupt this cliché-of-an-alt-weekly.

  • Andy Van De Voorde

    Why so unfriendly, Eve?
    I’m guilty of “crap thinking” and “bullshit”? Really?
    If you wanted to talk about readership numbers, all you had to do was ask.
    The fact is that SF Weekly beats the Bay Guardian in Media Audit’s head-to-head measure of online readership by about 10,000 readers.
    But I agree: phone polls with a limited sample aren’t the best way to calculate these things.
    So let’s look at Alexa.com a publicly available site that uses a variety of tools to determine a site’s popularity.
    According to Alexa, sfweekly.com has an overall Alexa Traffic Rank of 13,869, and a U.S. traffic rank of 3,795.
    By contrast, sfbg.com ranks 93,540 overall, and 28,264 in the U.S.
    Those are head-to-head numbers.
    Speaking of which, as I noted in my original blog post, in a head-too-head Media Audit survey of print readership, SF Weekly leads the Guardian by more than 150,000 readers.
    So there you have it: Three apples-to-apples measures, each of which shows the Weekly ahead of the Guardian, and the two most accurate of which show the Weekly far, far ahead of the Guardian.
    Are you ready to acknowledge the fact that the Weekly has the lead in both online and print readership?
    Or might you choke on it?

  • Andy Van De Voorde

    Why so unfriendly, Eve?
    I’m guilty of “crap thinking” and “bullshit”? Really?
    If you wanted to talk about readership numbers, all you had to do was ask.
    The fact is that SF Weekly beats the Bay Guardian in Media Audit’s head-to-head measure of online readership by about 10,000 readers.
    But I agree: phone polls with a limited sample aren’t the best way to calculate these things.
    So let’s look at Alexa.com a publicly available site that uses a variety of tools to determine a site’s popularity.
    According to Alexa, sfweekly.com has an overall Alexa Traffic Rank of 13,869, and a U.S. traffic rank of 3,795.
    By contrast, sfbg.com ranks 93,540 overall, and 28,264 in the U.S.
    Those are head-to-head numbers.
    Speaking of which, as I noted in my original blog post, in a head-too-head Media Audit survey of print readership, SF Weekly leads the Guardian by more than 150,000 readers.
    So there you have it: Three apples-to-apples measures, each of which shows the Weekly ahead of the Guardian, and the two most accurate of which show the Weekly far, far ahead of the Guardian.
    Are you ready to acknowledge the fact that the Weekly has the lead in both online and print readership?
    Or might you choke on it?

  • Brock Keeling

    Yes, but what about your dick sizes? I need to know penis lengths from both pubs’ editors, please. Otherwise, I don’t know what to think.

    Here, I’ll start: I’m lugging around an average 8″ down there.

  • Brock Keeling

    Yes, but what about your dick sizes? I need to know penis lengths from both pubs’ editors, please. Otherwise, I don’t know what to think.

    Here, I’ll start: I’m lugging around an average 8″ down there.

  • bugaloo

    A lot of people (not just those affiliated with the Guardian) have enjoyed the way this lawsuit has gone precisely because every time one of the VV Media people open their mouths in public, they sound like arrogant pricks. So you’d think finally losing for keeps and having to settle would be a good public relations moment for them to suck up the bitterness for five minutes and show some class. But apparently (see Mr. Van De Voorde above) not.

  • bugaloo

    A lot of people (not just those affiliated with the Guardian) have enjoyed the way this lawsuit has gone precisely because every time one of the VV Media people open their mouths in public, they sound like arrogant pricks. So you’d think finally losing for keeps and having to settle would be a good public relations moment for them to suck up the bitterness for five minutes and show some class. But apparently (see Mr. Van De Voorde above) not.