At this point, Solomon had Packard Media Group—a private company he and his partners had set up to try to buy The Washington Times—work up financial projections pro bono. One early iteration, provided by a former Center executive, shows how closely the vision mirrored the plan Solomon had tried to push through at the Times. Among other things, it included revenue from syndicated television and radio content, a weekly electronic magazine, and a daily e-edition—named The Weekly Guardian—and called for building an $80,000 television studio.
By year five, the document projected gross annual revenues of $16.4 million—a quarter of which would be paid in commission to Solomon’s private company, for advertising and subscription sales.
How exactly the vision evolved from there is murky, in part because the process was secretive—even most senior Center executives weren’t privy to the deliberations or the resulting plan. But both Solomon and Buzenberg say it was stripped down considerably. As Solomon puts it, “The plan exploded outward, then was winnowed back to reality.”
By August of 2010, the board’s executive committee had a draft plan in hand and had hired a Boston-based consulting firm called The Bridgespan Group, which specializes in nonprofit strategy, to vet it. Solomon and Buzenberg also began circulating the plan to their high-profile contacts, including Arianna Huffington. “Arianna read the business plan over the weekend on Geffen’s yacht in the Adriatic,” Solomon boasted in one email. “She loved it.”
At the same time, Solomon negotiated a merger between the Center and The Huffington Post Investigative Fund, a nonprofit arm of Huffington’s flagship site. As part of the deal, the Center would absorb the fund’s staff, including four reporters adept at juggling long projects and daily deadlines. Huffington, meanwhile, would raise at least $2 million for the Center to cover their salaries and expenses. According to Solomon’s emails, Huffington also agreed to drive 3 million pageviews per month to the Center’s website—more than tenfold what it was getting at the time.
The Huffington factor apparently helped persuade the board that the plan was workable—as did the $1.7 million Knight offered to fund the Center’s digital makeover. That fall, Bridgespan also delivered its report, which according to Buzenberg and board chairman Bruce Finzen, found the financial targets in the plan were most likely within reach. “The sense that the board got from the evaluation is that these were not pie-in-the-sky goals,” Finzen explains. “They were very realistic. This was a business plan that could work.”
Finally, on October 22—one day after the Center celebrated its 20th anniversary with a lavish $300-a-plate banquet—the board voted unanimously to embrace the new business model, which it branded Center 2.0.
Phase one of the plan consisted of several over-lapping pieces. First, instead of publishing a few dozen stories a year, the Center would transform itself into a destination news site, which reportedly would publish between 10 and 20 original stories each day. This was expected to create a surge in Web traffic, which the organization would parlay into a bounty of advertising. According to internal Center documents, the organization aimed to sell $635,000 in advertising (the Center called it “underwriting”) by year two. The plan also called for utilizing new cross-platform e-reader software, known as Treesaver, which would give digital stories the look and feel of magazine pieces, with multiple columns of text, lush graphics, and pages that flipped rather than scrolled. The idea was to offer access to this platform as a premium for an NPR-style membership. In the first year alone, the Center projected it would sell 50,000 memberships at $50 a piece, for a total of $2.5 million—a bold target, given that the largest membership-based news organization, Minnesota Public Radio, has only about 127,000 members, a base it took MPR decades to build.
Solomon is entrepreneurial. Entrepreneurial is FON. He will get more backers. And he will show you.
He will show you all!
#1 Posted by Edward Ericson Jr., CJR on Mon 9 Jul 2012 at 08:43 AM
some of us find self-promotion rather unseemly ... in journalism it is beyond unseemly to vulgar ... good riddance Solomon
#2 Posted by radii, CJR on Mon 9 Jul 2012 at 02:00 PM
And in a strange turn of events, Solomon has been rehired back at the Times as a consultant.
#3 Posted by Richard McMullen, CJR on Mon 9 Jul 2012 at 03:47 PM
Solomon to world: Bwaaa hahahahaha!
#4 Posted by Edward Ericson Jr., CJR on Mon 9 Jul 2012 at 05:23 PM
Correction: The tuna series was not nominated for a Pulitzer Prize. It may have been an entrant. The Pulitzer juries choose the nominees.
#5 Posted by Bill Dedman, CJR on Mon 9 Jul 2012 at 06:09 PM
Contrary to Edward says above in his comment, this is not, I think a future-of-news story. It's a story about an ethically smarmy journalist and abysmally poor (delusional?) leader, and what I find perhaps most appalling is that despite all these many missteps, including some during his reporting days that my students can't get away with in class, he still seems to somehow still get hired, promoted and respected by the journalism elites, including big foundations. Yes, FON's, of which I'm one, are pro-entrepreneurship, experimenting with multiple revenue streams, and becoming digital-first. However, these initiatives as described here seem incredibly poorly conceived, with little understanding of how to build a sound digital strategy and not at all in concert with the unique value proposition of an investigative reporting unit.
#6 Posted by Carrie Brown, CJR on Mon 9 Jul 2012 at 11:31 PM
Well he is still rocking the blackberry in 2012 with RIM going bankrupt. So, I think he is obviously right on the bleeding edge of technology.
Frankly, I would never trust anyone who was willing to work for the Moonies, that shows a real lack of intelligence and ethics.
#7 Posted by RhZ, CJR on Tue 10 Jul 2012 at 08:54 AM
Solomon's days as a reporter for the Post are reminiscent of Scott Templton, the reporter from show The Wire, who also "was notorious for massaging facts to conjure phantom scandals". Expect more of the same in Solomon's future endeavors.
#8 Posted by Mark, CJR on Tue 10 Jul 2012 at 11:58 AM
It's nice to see some acknowledgement that the Center for Public Integrity lacks it. Would have been also nice to note how much they have received from various lefty sources to fund their investigations, especially lefty funder George Soros.
#9 Posted by Dan Gainor, CJR on Wed 11 Jul 2012 at 05:29 AM
Oooooo, Danny. Remember that adage about glass houses?
#10 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 11 Jul 2012 at 11:57 AM
Ahh Thimbles, you are predictable in your vague and slimey accusations. First off, I don't see you having the courage to even use a real name. Perhaps you can't spell it. Even if you can and are just hiding, it allows you to make all sorts of bogus claims and outlandish comments and still live in your basement.
Next, I work as a conservative media critic after a couple decades in media including newspapers, magazines and online media. You?
#11 Posted by Dan Gainor, CJR on Wed 11 Jul 2012 at 02:08 PM
"First off, I don't see you having the courage to even use a real name. Perhaps you can't spell it. Even if you can and are just hiding, it allows you to make all sorts of bogus claims and outlandish comments and still live in your basement."
So times are pretty normal at the schoolyard for you, I see.
"Next, I work as a conservative media critic"
Is that what they're calling your gig of putting every bitch off the top of your head on the internet and pairing it with the name Soros? (more like sore-ass, amirite rightwingnuts?) Good to know that the wingnut welfare system is getting its conspiritorial-minded bang for its bucks.
Say hi to Bozwell for me next time you see that bearded lady. Ciao.
#12 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 11 Jul 2012 at 04:42 PM
By the by, we shouldn't let Solomon's business model leadership detract from the center's work which has been top notch on topics few others would touch.
For instance:
http://www.iwatchnews.org/2012/07/08/9293/black-lung-surges-back-coal-country
"Donald Marcum knew he was at least a passive participant in something that was against the rules, maybe even criminal. Every couple of months, his bosses had to send MSHA five samples showing they were keeping dust levels under control. The man with the greatest potential exposure — often Donald because he was running a continuous mining machine, which chews through coal and rock and generates clouds of dust — was supposed to wear a pump to collect dust for eight hours.
That almost never happened. Most of the time, he said, the mine foreman or someone else would take the pump and hang it in the cleaner air near the mine’s entrance.
When MSHA inspectors showed up to take their own samples, it wasn’t so easy to cheat. Donald would actually wear the pump, but he and his co-workers would mine only about half as much coal as they normally did, generating far less dust.
“We just done what we was told because we needed to feed our families and really didn’t look at what it might be doing to our health,” he said...
It’s difficult to tell how widespread such practices are, but many former miners described some variation of cheating occurring regularly at almost every mine where they had worked — and a culture of fear fostered by the companies. “We always set and thought, you know, maybe if we didn’t do it this way, that they’d come in and shut the mines down. Then we'd be out of work,” said David Neil, a 52-year-old West Virginia miner with black lung who now drives a coal-hauling truck."
#13 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 11 Jul 2012 at 05:02 PM
I think it's hilarious that Thimbles posts here. Shows just how morally bankrupt he is by his hiding his identity.
As for Soros, he has given at least $550 million to lefty causes and another $400 million funding his own higher ed initiatives. That's pretty far reaching, not that major media outlets would ever tell you.
#14 Posted by Dan Gainor, CJR on Thu 12 Jul 2012 at 12:35 PM
I think that a supposed conservative grousing obsessively about how a rich person spends their own wealth and exercises their own free speech, while being funded by other rich people spending their own wealth and exercising their free speech, might be a bit morally bankrupt. And considering the standards of the organization he trolls for, I'd be leery of throwing the "morally bankrupt" label around while gulping down all that Scaife money for lies.
I mean what's your rate, Danny? A penny per 'Soros'? You must have Koch level cash in your bank book by now. Speaking of which...
"As for Soros, he has given at least $550 million to lefty causes and another $400 million funding his own higher ed initiatives."
Yeah, we know what you're talking about when you make a claim like that.
"George Soros is a lizard-person who funded the space laser that caused 9-11. More from Dan Gainor in a moment."
What are you charging, Danny, and is it worth your pride?
#15 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 12 Jul 2012 at 04:04 PM
For Wales, Dan? For Wales?
http://gloria.tv/?media=171456
#16 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 12 Jul 2012 at 04:08 PM
I was a senior editor at The Washington Times under Solomon and its just not true that web traffic plunged when he was there. When he arrived the site was a sleepy afterthought updated once daily at midnight. When he left it had a dedicated staff updating around the clock, reporters were writing breaking news for the site, and we were aggressively pushing links out to aggregators. We broke into the top 30 newspaper sites in the Nielsen ratings during that time. Traffic did plunge after the owners laid off two-thirds of the staff and slashed the funding at the end of 2009, but Solomon was gone by then.
#17 Posted by David Jones, CJR on Sun 15 Jul 2012 at 02:14 PM
This article appears motivated by professional jealousy and pettiness. The slant of this is in search of scandal where none exists. CJR should be ashamed to print such an article filled with bias and smears.
#18 Posted by Fisherman, CJR on Mon 16 Jul 2012 at 05:06 PM
David Jones is correct. Traffic did rise on the Washington Times website under Solomon due to the ambitious updating and promoting Jones describes. We have corrected the piece to say so, and will say so again in a response to a letter to the editor from the Times in our next (September/October 2012) issue.
#19 Posted by Mike Hoyt, CJR on Fri 24 Aug 2012 at 01:55 PM