It's those internal readership studies -- surveys of readers and non-readers in a particular market, done every five years or so, to see how editorial is selling (or not selling).Yesterday, I've been told, news division honcho Phil Currie helped deliver one such study to the Courier-Post in Cherry Hill, N.J., rocked by newsroom unrest in recent weeks. Currie was joined by top regional executive Curtis Riddle, who also is publisher of The News Journal in Wilmington, Del. -- an unusually high-powered contingent, a Gannett Blog reader says in a comment on this post.
"Trust me," the reader says, "it's NOT routine for Currie, Riddle and another high-ranking official to come to a newsroom to deliver reader-survey results. If the results are good, they wouldn't bother coming all the way to Cherry Hill. The results are probably not good at all. They are probably so alarming that Currie, Riddle, et. al., felt the need to take the time to travel all the way down there. And, given all the bad publicity about Cherry Hill, I'm sure they talked about the workforce unrest."
Crack that whip!
I think this is still true: Corporate conducts the surveys, and controls the analysis. Yet, survey data aren't always black and white; they include lots of gray, subject to interpretation. If a publisher or editor is already on thin ice at Corporate, survey results can be interpreted in a way meant to send them packing.
Please describe your experience with Gannett's readership studies. Use this link to e-mail your reply; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the sidebar, upper right. Or leave a note in the comments section, below.
[Image: this morning's Courier-Post, Newseum]
Sorry to rain on this panic parade, but both Phil and Curtis have come to our paper on previous occasions to deliver market study results.
ReplyDeleteThe numbers are a big deal and get treated that way. The results are also incredibly helpful; I have found them to be amazingly accurate.
Research is something that Dave Daughtery and his crew do very well. The research -- both for advertising and news - definitely gives us an advantage over our competitors.
I wonder if that's a change from past practice; I never remember Currie personally delivering readership survey results to any of the papers where I worked. Also, related: What was the name of the long-time readership research guy Daughtery (I guess) replaced?
ReplyDeleteI'm calling bullshit on the original poster here. Reader survey results collected at the Asbury Park Press were usually transformed into ass-backward mandates that only served to make the paper more unreadable. Corporate would take sentiments from the public like, "Hey, we'd like to see shorter stories, we're busy these days ya know," and transform that into shit like: ONLY ONE STORY ON THE FRONT PAGE CAN JUMP TO THE INSIDE.
ReplyDeleteI swear, nothing good ever came out of those surveys. I always wondered who the hell was responding to them.
I think you mean you're calling B.S. on the first COMMENTER -- Anon@12:05; I was the original poster!
ReplyDeleteI call BS too. In my experience (reporter at Gannett-owned small paper in midwest), these surveys have been used to water down the journalistic mission of our newspaper by spending time and money trying to figure out what readers *want* instead of what they *need*. Readers said they wanted to learn about "things to do" in the community, so we are focusing on printing events listings instead of actual news. Short-sighted.
ReplyDeleteOK, so how would you fix it? How would you make this process better, stop complaining and start talking about how Gannett should make the process more effective. This attitude is what causing our industry to go down the hill, you have an idea and a better process, YOU NEED TO SPEAK OUT, otherwise, stop complaining.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI wonder what will you say when the web will replace your college newspaper alltogether.
ReplyDeleteI think major/metro newspapers will be a great complement to your college paper.
You have the same concerns WSJ editorial board had about Newscorp, but they figured out a way to marry the two together.
You should at least be happy about having a job when you graduate.
Welcome to the real world.
The reader who says, "Trust me, it's NOT routine" is wrong. It is pretty standard practice for the group president (Curtis, in this case) to attend the research presentation at the newspaper that has been studied. As the other poster said, Phil has been known to attend these meetings as well.
ReplyDeleteGiven all the recent conversation about Cherry Hill, I'm sure they were very interested in these particular results, but don't read too much into their mere presence at the meeting.
I've seen Gannett honchos attend readership reports at the last two newspapers I've worked at, so I believed it was standard. Those surveys are a big deal and sites can only afford to do them every couple of years.
ReplyDeleteJim:
ReplyDeleteIt was David Neft that you were wondering about. He retired five years or so ago.
Very funny guy, Dave was.
I worked at the CP for more than two decades (and that GOD I got out...) and NEVER heard of Currie and his posse entering the building. Just a little FYI.
ReplyDeleteSure Riddle has attended these things before, but have you ever seen him in action? It's embarrassing. He adds nothing to the discussion, and simply mirrors whatever corporate seagull is saying at the moment. I don't think the man has a single, original thought in his head.
ReplyDeleteNot to mention that Riddles own newspaper is a joke, so Group Presidents in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Riddle and former CP pub Mark Frisby had something in common then. Frisby would sit in meetings looking for an opportunity to jump on something stupid said, rake the guy over, and then not say anything helpful. Just muscle, no brains.
ReplyDeleteYou must remember that Frisby is a Bob Collins disciple, so that is how those guys work. See if they can make others look stupid to make themselves look smart. Frisby is the mirror image of Collins, and we all know how that ends up. For Riddle, there is no way possible for him to look smart. Unless corporate tells him to do something, he can't do it. His brain cannot come up with an original thought. Plus he is a phony. His people skills are horrible. Ask any employee in Wilmington. Ninety percent have never even spoken to him. He never leaves his office and provides zero leadership. It's no wonder his newspapers have underperformed for years. Riddle is a joke and quite honestly should be relieved of his Regional President responsibilities and be transferred to corporate before he leaves Gannett "to pursue personal interests". Then we would see the true potential of the Wilmington paper.
ReplyDelete