"We will be looking at additional (full-time equivalent) reductions in the fourth quarter, certainly on the publishing side, here on the Corporate side, and in other divisions,'' she told a third-quarter earnings teleconference of stock analysts. (Her reference to the "publishing side" mostly applies to the 84 revenue-losing community dailies.)Martore continued, according to the conference transcript: "We are in the planning process right now and looking out to 2009, so when we do, we will try to report on that for you, give you a better sense of it, when we are up on Wall Street in early December."
Her remarks followed CEO Craig Dubow's warning last week that another round of layoffs could be announced by year's end. Based on Martore's comments, I now suspect that those proposed spending cuts I posted on last week -- as high as 7.5% -- may apply to 2009's budget, rather than to current spending.
Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write gannettblog[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the green sidebar, upper right.
Hey, Jim, why do you say the community papers are losing revenue?
ReplyDeletexxx Her reference to the "publishing side" means the revenue-losing community newspaper division.) xxx
As much as they are dumped on, the community newspapers still pull in the bulk of GCI's revenues. There would be no GCI and certainly no USA Today without the community papers.
8:09: You are correct: The community papers pull in the lion's share of Gannett's revenue -- but not as much revenue as they once did: Newspaper ad revenue was down 18% during the third quarter, Gannett said today.
ReplyDeleteHow can you say there would be no
ReplyDeleteUSAT without community newspapers?
Because the community papers publish USA Today and hide the costs in their production budgets. USA Today is not economically viable on its own without the financial support of the community papers. This will be an issue that will become clear during this recession.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree the new cuts are in the 2009 budget, and not current spending levels. The 2009 budget is being rescrubbed top-to-bottom, which is why the delay until December. Involved will be some really tough and mind-boggling decisions, especially if the 15 percent cut rumor/posting is correct.
ReplyDeleteI am inclined to go with 15 percent in cuts, since 3Q revenues declined 32 percent.
ReplyDeleteOne of the easiest and simplest way to make the savings: make employees pick up all of health care costs. That would mean employees would have to pay more than $3,000 per year that corporate's budget now pays, but save corporate more than $30 million. Do you think that is the reason we haven't got the annual health care plan on time?
ReplyDeleteDoubt that the company would cut the health plan. Last year the health plan sign-up period was in November, so I would expect it will be the same again this year.
ReplyDeleteIt would make better sense to continue to offer health insurance but either make it so expensive or cover so little it effectively is useless to most people.
ReplyDeleteYou can't hire or keep people without having some sort of health insurance, even if it sucks. And the way things go legislatively, it wouldn't be surprising if soon many states require employers of Gannett's size to provide that insurance.
It's much easier and less disruptive to the vast majority of the 45,000 employees to fire 6,750 of us (ave. cost wage & benefits, $40k/yr, $270M annually) than to piss around with $30M in health care savings.
Then again, we ration pencils.
Wall Street Journal in a story Friday evening about 40 percent of the Star Ledger newsroom departing noted: "Gannett Co., which publishes USA Today, said Friday it is looking at its second round of job cuts this year." Next will come a wave of stories from local alternative and business publications speculating on the fate of staffs at local papers. It's August all over again. Awful, awful, awful. How can people work in such an atmosphere?
ReplyDeleteWe can't 9:03 am. Nothing like making money, turning a profit, and not investing it in the company, at least we would go down fighting. Anyone involved in producing our products, print or broadcast, knows that without eyes, ears and feet on the street the news simply will become regurgitated press releases and people will seek their information from sources other than ours. Without a change or strategy this seems like all we can expect. To care about where you work anymore is a liability for your own sanity. Great people did once care but today most great people can't care as a method of self preservation. I for one am planning my escape.
ReplyDeleteI think Gannett made a big mistake in 2000 by buying all those Thomson newspapers and others. After buying them, Gannett then ignored them, letting them fall farther into disarrey. They are now as much a liability as anything elese. Appleton? Mansfield? These are terrible papers with little real revenue. I predict many will be sold off and also others will have Monday editions cut.
ReplyDeleteAppleton? Excuse me? We're one of the most successful papers in the whole lot! If you take Wisconsin as a whole (8 of the 10 former Thomson), we make more revenue than almost all the metros. Our combined circulation is more than almost all the metros. Our readership percentage is second only to that of Rochester. Do things suck? Yes, but they suck a whole bunch less in Wisconsin than the do at other sites.
ReplyDeleteRight on, 8:24. Not sure where 2:24 is getting his/her info. The WI papers do pretty damn good in terms of revenue.
ReplyDelete