"Don't expect Woodward and Bernstein on MomsLickMe."
-- Anonymous@6:14 p.m., responding to critics who claim some Gannett employees are secretly manipulating conversations among readers on the company's network of Moms Like Me websites.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Naughty nicknames we've given to moms sites
-- Anonymous@6:14 p.m., responding to critics who claim some Gannett employees are secretly manipulating conversations among readers on the company's network of Moms Like Me websites.
14 comments:
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If you are going to keep doing this at least state what we all know and you won't admit: you are anti-Gannett. This blog is anti-Gannett. There is no objectivity anymore.
ReplyDeleteSad that for somebody who touts the "truth" they can't back it up.
How about "HOTMOM's.COM
ReplyDeleteOnce again, I think this blog is reveling in being unnecessarily nasty.
ReplyDeleteI am not from corporate, or new media, nor am I a moms site manager. I watched good journalists get laid off and the moms manager keep her job. It wasn't easy to watch any dedicated journalist go, but that isn't the Moms manager's fault.
At our paper, she works very hard to market the site, plan events attended by actual (unpaid) moms, monitor the chat, virally market the site and form b2b alliances. However, she also helps out in every way she can -- answering phones, offering story ideas, using the site to seed conversations that lead to real stories (NOT on alternative sexual positions, but on real topics that moms do care about), posting breaking news that matters to families, and filling the gap for our laid off marketing department.
Now that the layoffs have hit the newsroom, she will be helping more with the print product too, even though that wasn't her job description. She works more hours than other exempt workers in the newsroom and we are grateful to have her.
PS. When Gannett collapses at your feet and you have no choice but to market your skills outside of the industry you might want to learn a bit more about forums, story chat, seeding conversations and viral marketing, as it is going to come up at many jobs a newsroom journalist might find him/herself looking for.
10:14 AM said,
ReplyDelete"PS. When Gannett collapses at your feet and you have no choice but to market your skills outside of the industry you might want to learn a bit more about forums, story chat, seeding conversations and viral marketing, as it is going to come up at many jobs a newsroom journalist might find him/herself looking for."
Makes me wonder what kind of changes Gannett has or will make to the ethics policy to keep up with the changes.
I think this corporation has sold its soul to money-grubbing entrepreneurs who are willing to peddle the good names newspapers have built up for decades on filth like the Moms site. There is stuff on those sites that no respectible newspaper would permit in its columns. This is a company that used to pride itself for its family values, and wholesomeness. When you are encouraging people to write about BJs, we have hit a new all-time low. It is disgraceful, and if you look at the share price, it obviously is something that investors aren't interested in backing with their money. When GCI loses the backing of Wall Street, lowers the product standards, degrades the brand name, and disgusts its readers, it is all over, folks.
ReplyDelete11:00 am, I have to agree with you. It is not only pathetic, it is sad. The site itself is awful. When they launched it at our paper we, too, were told to go on with as many alias as possible and go on during work hours - not a problem if your other work became second fiddle. I was very uncomfortable with the whole site and still am. It's embarressing to the Gannett Co.
ReplyDeleteI agree with 11:00 and I am asking how low will they go to get a few advertising pennies?
ReplyDeleteEeeew!
ReplyDeleteMLM is as bad as MILF ...
Ick.
Talking is one thing. Action is another.
ReplyDeleteDid anybody who was asked to go to the Moms site under alias names call the Gannett ethics hotline to have this checked out?
Gannett Ethics? That's a laugh.
ReplyDeleteI really wish I had to guts to post what I know regarding un-ethical actions at my site.
If Gannett wants to bail out of the news business to load up on Moms, alt-weeklies, CareerBuilder, Cars.com, it should sell the newspapers and stations and end the pretense of having any commitment to the kind of journalism that makes this country so great. Hopefully the new owners will be committed to refocusing the papers and stations and undoing decades of damage under Gannett ownership.
ReplyDeleteThe W&B comparison is just unfair -- completely different products and goals.
ReplyDeleteAnd for 11:00 AM -- "There is stuff on those sites that no respectible newspaper would permit in its columns." It's not a newspaper. It's a Web site. It has a different personality and requires different strategies. This is why you will never get it.
12:14 AM
ReplyDeleteNo, 'fraid it's you who doesn't get it this time.
I'll help you. Remember when Gannett's USAT went ga ga announcing those coffee shops in airports? That was to promote the brand. Remember?
Well, whether you make an annoucement or not, anything you hook up with your news product either promotes or hampers the brand.
In my opnion, those poor pitiful Moms sites cast a dark shawdow on everything Gannett and its brands.
I've always resented these Moms sites. I didn't picket in the '70s for the ERA so my daughters three decades later have to see their lives and jobs defined as "women's work."
ReplyDeleteWhen my paper started a Moms site, I was asked to contribute. I refused unless they changed it to "Parents Portal" or something similar. Men are parents too and are equally likely to share the same household responsibilities.
So, I find it hysterically funny that enough of us have boycotted participating in this nonsense that some sites have to assign men on staff to pretend to be women to create conversation.
Losers.