'Spokesman-Review' Challenges Two-Year AP Cancellation Rule

By: Joe Strupp The Spokesman-Review of Spokane, Wash. -- one of several newspapers deciding to drop Associated Press service following the recent AP rate changes -- appears to be the first to challenge AP's requirement that a two-year notice be given.

In a letter to AP dated Aug. 27, a lawyer for the Spokesman-Review claims that the new rate structure, set to take effect at the beginning of 2009, represents a new contract. Therefore, the letter contends, the newspaper is not bound by the old agreement that required a two-year notice.

"The Spokesman-Review intends to retain its current relationship with the Associated Press through December 31, 2008, but will not be executing a new contract reflecting the changes as required by the AP in the new Member Choice program," the letter from attorney Duane M. Swinton says, in part.

It also adds that: "The new contractual arrangement represents a continued and material shift by the AP of separating services from the basic package so that some services will be available only by signing up for supplemental programs. Thus, AP services that formerly were part of a basic plan will now only be available through a supplemental plan approach. This dilutes the value of the basic Breaking News plan and constitutes a material change in the quality and breadth of the services offered by the AP under the basic contract."

The Spokesman-Review attorney sent the letter to Jodie DeJonge, Chief of Bureau for Alaska, Idaho and Washington based in Seattle.

"There is no new contract involved in what is a service upgrade," AP Director of Media Relations Paul Colford said in a statement to E&P. "At the same time, the AP will be working with The Spokesman-Review and other papers to help resolve concerns they may have during the rollout of Member Choice, which will provide newspaper members with greatly expanded basic news coverage."

The Spokesman-Review letter also claims that "state and regional coverage offered by the AP has deteriorated in quality and, as a result, has not been satisfactory," as well as saying the new rate structure "is priced too high, considering the quality and breadth of the services offered."

The Spokesman-Review challenge follows AP's plans to implement a new rate structure that was initially announced in 2007 and drew some opposition from editors.

Under current AP policy, each newspaper buys a package of general news created by AP based on that paper's location and circulation. The package usually includes breaking news, sports, business, and other national, international, and regional news relevant to the client's market, including its state AP wire. ??

Under the new structure, AP member newspapers will receive all breaking news worldwide (including items from other state wires), as well as breaking sports, business, and entertainment stories. In addition, a package of premium content ? made up of five types of non-breaking stories including sports, entertainment, business, lifestyle and analysis ? will be available at an additional cost. ??

When the new structure was announced in 2007, AP promised a combined savings of $5.6 million across newspaper member budgets, which increased to $14 million ?and, finally, $21 million just days before the April annual AP meeting.??

Still, a handful of newspapers have already notified AP that they plan to drop service and have given the required two years' notice. Those include: The Star Tribune of Minneapolis; The Post Register of Idaho Falls; The Bakersfield Californian; and The Yakima Herald-Republic and Wenatchee World, both of Washington.

But the Spokesman-Review appears to be the first paper to challenge the two-year rule.

"We do not believe there is a two-year notice requirement as the current AP structure has been unilaterally changed and we're being asked to sign a new contract for the new AP system," Spokesman-Review Editor Steve Smith said in an e-mail to E&P. "On that basis, the old contract will expire Dec. 31 and we'll not sign a new one. In a sense, it's not a cancellation at all, but a decision to decline signing any new contracts."