Victims of foreclosure in Central Connecticut are required to pay The Hartford Courant at least twice as much for foreclosure ads as what real estate agents are charged for similarly sized ads.
Real estate attorneys who handle foreclosures told me this week that homeowners or banks pay $1,441.20 to $2,600 for each foreclosure ad that is published on two Sundays in The Courant’s Real Estate section. Windsor Atty. Kevin Deneen said he paid $2,600 for his ad while Hartford lawyer Patrick Rosenberger said he paid the smaller amount and the smaller ad.
A major real estate firm that advertises every week pays less than $950 for the $2,600 ad (two inches wide, three inches deep) for the same two Sundays, real estate agents told me.
Online Courant ad
And, The Courant offers even lower rates in its real estate section for house sale ads: less than $200 for an ad with a photo both in the real estate section and on the Internet. See copy of ad.
Last Sunday the Courant published 32 foreclosure ads. Even if all the foreclosure ads were the small ads at $720 each, that times 52 weeks, the total revenue The Courant would receive this year would be almost $1.2 million for these ads, which are required by the state judicial system.
These ads are important, the lawyers said, because the more publicity that is generated about a house the greater chance there is for a larger turnout of potential bidders, raising the amount of money that a homeowner could still receive.
It is not known whether other Connecticut daily newspapers charge more for foreclosure ads than they do for real estate ads from established firms.
It is also not known whether The Courant and other newspapers charge different rates for mandatory municipal public notices than for similarly sized advertising that is not mandatory.
The mandatory ad issue was raised when the governor and some state legislators proposed recently that municipalities should not have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to post notices in newspapers when they could post the same information on the Internet. The legislation is supported by the Connecticut Council of Municipalities.
Needless to say, The Courant and other daily newspapers reacted as if the General Assembly wanted to end freedom of speech. Full-page ads have been appearing in The Courant and other newspapers warning that the public’s right to know was in jeopardy. None of the ads – put together by the Connecticut Daily Newspaper Association – discloses how much money the newspapers receive, and they give a very slanted – some would say false – representation of the issues.
Both the CCM and the CDNA say they don’t know how much money is involved in the mandatory municipal ads. East Hartford officials say they spend $100,000 a year.
After I wrote several columns agreeing with the governor and the CCM, I raised the issue of whether newspapers were more worried about losing foreclosure advertising.
South Windsor resident Maureen Teachman wrote to me and to Courant Publisher Richard Graziano questioning whether The Courant charged more for foreclosure ads than for similar ads placed in the same section by real estate agents. Graziano, she said today, had yet to respond to her e-mail. He also did not respond to my e-mail requesting information about the ad rates that I also sent to Jim Leahy, executive director of the newspaper association.
Leahy said he had no idea what different newspapers charge for ads and he berated me for raising these troublesome questions.
“As I mentioned to you the other day, I don’t have individual rate information for the publishers. Although not a lawyer, my training in Association Management assures me that any such sharing of information at a meeting could be construed as an anti-trust violation and I have no interest in that. CDNA has never discussed rates at any meeting since I’ve been involved nor will they as long as I am involved.
“With that said, my knowledge of the industry leads me to believe that you are searching for ways to portray the Courant in the worst possible light. Shame on you. Just be fair. I have no interest in participating in that discussion,” he wrote me today. As most of you know I was fired by The Courant after being an employee for 40 years and I am suing the newspaper for wrongful discharge.
Superior Court Judge Douglas Mintz, chairman of the state’s judicial foreclosure committee, said today that the price of foreclosure ads is important because if there is equity in the house after it is sold at auction, the owners receive all the proceeds minus expenses like advertising. And if there isn’t, the banks have to pay for the costs.
He said he had no idea that The Courant charged as much as $2,600 for two ads since he is more familiar with rates charged in the Norwalk and Stamford area, where his office is. In the southern part of the state, he said, the ads are considerably less expensive since the newspapers there are smaller.
Newspaper ads were much more expensive prior to last fall when the state judiciary allowed for smaller ads in combination with a judicial website that gives a lot more information on each house.
“We have heard that some of the newspapers were charging a lot of money,” he said, explaining that his information comes from anecdotal data because a formal study of costs has yet to be done.
Mintz said further studies will be conducted on how to reduce advertising costs even more. One way, he said, would be to simply have a large ad in newspapers informing readers where all foreclosures can be found on the Internet. But, the judge said, there is no mechanism in place on how or who to bill for that ad since it could not be charged to a single homeowner.
“We are looking at all avenues… to keep the costs down,” the judge said, adding that “Newspapers play a vital role” in informing people about foreclosure auctions.
““With that said, my knowledge of the industry leads me to believe that you are searching for ways to portray the Courant in the worst possible light…”
And the Cournat is making it very very easy.