SF Weekly Settles Pricing Lawsuit

By Andy VanDeVoorde Mon., Jan. 3 2011 at 12:12 AM

SF Weekly today settled the below-cost pricing lawsuit filed against it in 2004 by the San Francisco Bay Guardian.

The agreement, under which the parties have resolved and settled their differences on mutually acceptable terms, brings the legal action to an end. Details are not being disclosed.

SF Weekly and sfweekly.com will continue business as usual, bringing readers award-winning multi-platform coverage of news, food, music and arts in the Bay Area.

In fact, the Weekly has continued to widen its lead over the Guardian despite the six-year legal distraction.

The Weekly's advantage is especially notable online. Google Analytics shows that, in August 2010, 452,473 unique visitors logged onto sfweekly.com. Media Audit reported just 63,774 uniques for sfbg.com.

A comparison using data from the same sources shows that the Weekly is second only to the San Francisco Chronicle's sfgate.com in cumulative Web readership in the Bay Area. The Guardian lags at eighth place in the market.

According to the most recent Media Audit report, the Weekly has grown its print readership to 535,259 versus the Guardian's 383,141, giving the Weekly 152,118 more print readers. That represents a gain of 22 percent for the Weekly compared to a loss of 10 percent for the Guardian.

Follow us on Twitter at @TheSnitchSF and @SFWeekly

We Recommend

Awkbyrd

It saddens me that a clearly inferior journalistic and business operation was able to convince the Supremes of California of the outdated idea that competition is 'unfair'. It sends exactly the wrong message to all: litigate don't innovate.

Guest

Now the layoffs begin...

Michael Hardesty

This is legal robbery and extortion by the Bay Guardian perfectly in line with their thuggish philosophy of using government force to coerce people. This anti-capitalistic law should never have been on the books. It's even more restrictive than the absurd federal laws. All this fraud does is buy a little more time for Big Bruce and Sorry Little Tim.Ten years from now there will be no Left left.

Julian

"thuggish philosophy"?you mean when a paper is backed by a huge corporation so that it allows them to under price their ad costs in order to drive a smaller paper out of business?Sounds to me like a court of law found that to be a pretty clear case of "thuggish philosophy". Is this your idea of capitalism?

Michael Hardesty

Price undercutting is an essential of business competition. It doesn't matter whether it's done by a large corporation or a small business. Capitalism is precisely untrammeled competition and the consumer benefits through lower prices. IF enough people wanted to support the Bay Guardian they could freely do so by paying the higher prices for ads there. SF Weekly actually paid its writers and didn't bust any union as the SFBG did in 1976.For decades the SFBG had a free ride and competion comes along they go whining to thestate to shut it down.Shame on them !

Have you read the UPA?

Interesting idea, but not what California's Unfair Practices Act says.

Mflinstone23

..so according to the law, you guys were wrong all along?

Patrick

The SF Weekly's reporting has been really good. The "Worst Run City in America" and "Let it Bleed" articles regarding how broken our city government is helped shed a light on just how poorly the City is run. The Bay Guardian doesn't seem to want to touch those issues.

JoelSF

SFBG really kinda lost me when, several months after I got transferred out here and learned how well this town deals with a crumbling transportation system and a clear transient problem, they had a lead op-ed from Redmond earnestly suggesting that the city take over the creation and operation of our own cable television system. Those guys just seem to live in a different world.