Monday, December 08, 2008

Euphemisms 101: How to sell cutbacks to readers

"We'll walk you through some exciting changes we have in mind for our print and online editions.''

-- the Green Bay Press-Gazette, in a published note to readers yesterday. The "exciting'' changes include reducing the amount of news. Not mentioned: a year ago, the Press-Gazette had a 43% profit margin -- the highest among all Gannett dailies.

17 comments:

  1. From the column: "In the meantime, we want to stress that even with the most recent job cuts, the Press-Gazette didn't eliminate one reporter's job, one photographer's job or one sales job."

    Then who DID get laid off? Just curious.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wow.... how pathetic THIS column is. Just refer to my post in the "general" posting earlier, for my reaction:

    "It appears that someone got the (not so) bright idea that all the EEs and MEs should write "heart felt" columns over the weekend telling readers that despite the "future changes" at their newspaper that "their" local newspaper was committed to reraders and coverage of the community.

    What an amazing load of BS!

    I just read the column by the Marion (Ohio) editor that a poster linked, and it was incredibly worthless, vague and full of folksy twinky journalism platitudes. So was the one in Shrieveport... and some of the others I have seen excerpts from in the last few days.

    What garbage! "Times are hard" is the only explanation given readers - if they are given any explanation at all.

    The Marion paper is just an example of how far those Ohio community papers have fallen. One blogger pointed out that one of the Ohio group in a photo caption last week got the name of the city's mayor wrong - not misspelled - just had the wrong person as the long-standing mayor!!!

    Apparently it was a big joke in that town the last week....

    No credibility is the new standard for Gannett.

    And these worthless columns by the editor just make it worse!

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is classic Gannett denial tactics. And readers don't buy it. The idea that the paper is going to get better because fewer people somehow are going to increase their workload dramatically to feed the beast (and yes managers, labor law does cover your unpaid hours over 40 worked each week) is the kind of nonsence that only managers of questionable or no experience would embrace. It doesn't happen that way. I listened to hundreds of faithful readers scream at me because of one round of such changes when the paper ran a BS column with all the buzz words. It was shameful. They didn't buy it then and they won't now.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Readers are not stupid. Why can't Gannett understand that?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Our paper didn't go public with the cuts at all. And they did include reporters, editors and sales. I guess they're hoping nobody notices.

    It bothers the hell out of us still there. Because when the paper shrinks (which it's supposed to dramatically, from what I hear) and the coverage goes down, the public will wonder what happened.

    Those of us who do get out in the public have been spreading the news of "involuntary staff reductions" in this "exciting time" in journalism, just so people know.

    The Green Bay paper only let 1-2 people go, I believe...but also completely shut down two weeklies that were under its care. So that's where the cuts came from.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Depending on the newspaper the layoffs may not have been news worthy. My creative dept. is consolidating to GB in March. I'm curious as to how this effects business in the future. Or the future of our paper.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It's sad to say but our local paper is mostly fluff. Mostly advertising and AP news stuff. Most of the news is online and never gets printed. It's hard to keep people interested in our product.

    ReplyDelete
  8. ....and the 44" web is a benefit to readers because they don't have to stretch their arms out so far!

    My parents' paper is still printed on 54". I almost threw out a rotator cuff opening it the other day.....

    ReplyDelete
  9. It's nice to see some of you trashing anyone left behind trying to get a newspaper out the door each day and a Web site fed and watered 24/7.

    The 11:24 AM post was particularly mean-spirited. That's what I have come to expect from a lot of you.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think the key here is "the PRESS-GAZETTE didn't lay off..."

    In other words, the poor folks at the two weeklies in Denmark and Wrightstown that were put down were laid off. But they don't work for the P-G.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The Register ran a four page special feature in their Opinion section this weekend. Alas, there was no room for letters to editor about cutting Duffy, the register editorial cartoonist.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Come on, people. For those who did survive the cuts (this round, anyways), we still have a job to do -- and that's to put out a product that has at least the semblance of quality. The publishers and executive editors don't like working with a reduced staff and limited resources anymore than the next person does. But what can they do but keep their heads high and try to stay positive. And that's all this column (and others like it) are trying to do -- encourage both readers and staff by staying positive. Otherwise, we'd all just be a bunch of negative assholes with no ambition, no goals, no nothing but still trying to collect a paycheck for poor work. Take a little pride in your work. That's all the rest of us left behind are trying to do -- do our work and do it well. And when we're axed, hey, we're axed. But we can leave knowing that we still had some dignity left.

    Really, what else are those left behind supposed to do? Mope around and nothing else? Of course not. How about try to do the best we can despite the circumstances. Again, people -- take a little pride in your work. If not for others or readers, at least for yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  13. 5:32 PM
    Actions speak louder than words. The company acted. (laid off some community favorites.) Words in a column can't fix that, especially if the community sees an inferior product now after the cuts.

    I'm looking at this from the outside, and I can tell you I'm howling with laughter---especially at the columns.

    It looks to me like the principal (someone at corporate) gave a bunch of students (those column writers) an assignment. Wonder if they'll grade them?

    Now, if you can hold your head up high and play the cheerleader, more power to you. You're obviously a wonderful employee of your information center.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Take a little pride in our work? It's simply not possible, when the very company that employs us doesn't take pride in the work of our best employees. The company is more interested in inferior web videos, press release-driven content, and mommy blogs. It is less interested in producing skilled journalism. Barring a very few exceptions, that is overwhelmingly the rule. So, we see with our own eyes every day that the company takes no pride in its own product. Employees shouldn't be asked to do something that their bosses don't do. It's an unreasonable request.

    ReplyDelete
  15. If the editor doesn't address the cuts, he's hiding. If he does, he's Pollyanna. Which way do you want it?

    You know what, get over yourselves. Quit wallowing in what now is someone else's real grief. You still have a paycheck. Your co-workers need you to do your job, your community needs you to do your job, and goddamn it, yes, the stockholders of Gannett need you to do that job.

    I must be able to hold my head up and say I'm doing the best job I can. Not because my neighbors know where I work (they don't) not because my boss expects it (she does) and not because my position is layoff proof (it isn't)

    I have to do the best job I can, and encourage the people I work with to do the same - for only one reason. Our names still go out attached to what we've touched.

    For those laid off, my deepest and heartfelt sympathies, as I thought I was with you.

    The rest of you, join me in working to prevent this happening again.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This seem vaguely familiar.... As if they followed another as a that was ou thier already. Not sure, but hmmm. At least be original. Publisher wrote this?

    ReplyDelete
  17. From the user comments on that column:

    "Thanks for the overview, but I'm not certain self-proclaiming yourself to still be 'relevant' necessarily means you automatically are. That's a determination for readers to decide."

    Amen to that.

    ReplyDelete

Jim says: "Proceed with caution; this is a free-for-all comment zone. I try to correct or clarify incorrect information. But I can't catch everything. Please keep your posts focused on Gannett and media-related subjects. Note that I occasionally review comments in advance, to reject inappropriate ones. And I ignore hostile posters, and recommend you do, too."

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.