"We will become content creators for our advertising partners, pricing and selling
our content for use by them."
-- CEO Craig Dubow, addressing Wall Street stock analysts on Dec. 10, where he unveiled the new ContentOne web wire that he said would "completely change the way we share content across the company."
Was wondering if the ethics policy has been overhauled now that transformation has been explained?
ReplyDeleteRealizing that we are all supposed to read this post and silently shudder at the vulgar idea being put forth, but, as a veteran journalist, all I can do is shrug. This is nothing new -- all Dubow is doing is acknowledging a basic, fundamental truth, which is that newspapers make their money wrapping news around ads. When things were different, we could all fool ourselves into thinking this was all so noble. And a lot of good journalism came out of that. But it was always based on the whims of our advertisers.
ReplyDeletePuh-LEEZ, 2:41 -- read that line again: "We will become content creators FOR OUR ADVERTISING PARTNERS . . . "
ReplyDeleteThat's NOTHING like most newspapers have been doing over the decades, and it's got NOTHING to do with "wrapping news around ads," which was about layout, NOT about content. Jeez.
Whether he meant to say it that way or not, Dubow's words push beyond the old envelope.
Cringeworthy.
Somewhere in Gannett, bells are tolling.
Not sure if the site directors are listening to DuBow on this. I worked in a position that forced myself and colleagues to often straddle the ethics fence in regard to sponsored content vs. editorial content. My colleagues and I got booted out the door in the last round. It appears to me from what I have read, heard and seen that a reasonable number of mid-level execs. at Gannett sites are taking a passive-aggressive role to DuBow's strategies to transoform the company. A lot of people who were innovators got the boot in the last round of layoffs. I think that there are some EEs out there who are eliminating positions that focus on DuBow's plans in favor of saving traditional newspaper newsroom jobs primarily because they feel "the company needs to get back to its core." When I got the boot a lot of incompetent newsroom folks were spared. I was helping the company make a lot of money working on specialty publications. Where is the rationale in that?
ReplyDeleteFortunately, I had time to prepare for my departure. In a conversation last summer, my boss threatened our staff that he, his boss and HR "had a list" of people for layoffs. I knew that despite my exceptional performance reviews that my name would wind up on their list.
If DuBow and his counterparts really want to transform this company, they need to take stories like mine seriously. The problem with Gannett is a lot of the folks managing its 85 newspaper sites. A lot of these people have been in the same posts for years and simply serve as chair warmers. They don't have original ideas and often times scoff at good ideas. There were many times that I found myself going back numerous times with the same idea to my boss until she embraced the concept. Most of them turned out to be ideas that made a lot of money for my site.
I would be more than willing to supply DuBow, Connell and Marymont with names, positons and instances of when these directors seriously failed in their performance. However, I will not do it in a public forum. So what do you say Craig, why not create a project that invites former and current employees to "tell us how we are managing at each of our properties?" I'd talk if I was promised that my name wouldn't get back to my ex-bosses. I suspect that corporate doesn't want to hear about how its employees are failing.
3:32 --
ReplyDeleteThat's precisely my point. Dubow offers a perfect description of the newspaper-advertiser relationship. Please, offer me, if you will, some evidence that proves otherwise. The golden age of American newspaper journalism was paid for by ads for department stores, realtors and tire shops. Those same advertisers were quick to yank their ads at the first sign of trouble. They weren't buying ads to fund good journalism -- they were buying ads mostly because we had them over a barrel. Now we don't. So now, we have to be a little more honest about what this is all about. That's all I'm saying. Cringe if you want. I could care less.
Know what happens when you become a "content creator for our advertising partners?" People stop reading your content.
ReplyDeleteThis is why you can't be a creator for your advertisers. You *can* try to create something that people want to read, and then your advertisers can use that vehicle to reach their customers. But when you give advertisers whatever it is they think they want...it's almost always craptastic