From The New York Times:
The Gannett Co., owner of the nation’s largest newspaper chain, will go through another round of layoffs soon, with an announcement possible in the next few days, executives said today.
The company’s United States and British newspaper divisions eliminated more than 10,000 jobs in 2007 and 2008, including about 2,000 layoffs last fall, and Gannett executives have said repeatedly that they expect more downsizing, including layoffs. The company, which also owns a chain of television stations and Internet ventures, ended last year with 41,500 employees, including 35,800 in its newspaper divisions.
On Gannett Blog, a former Gannett editor who closely follows the company, Jim Hopkins, quotes an unnamed person in the company as saying that it will announce on July 8 that it is eliminating 4,500 United States newspaper jobs, and cutting salaries in its broadcast division.
Gannett executives, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release the information, said the number of jobs affected would be significantly smaller than that, and the news would probably come sooner than July 8.
Tara Connell, the company’s chief spokeswoman, declined to comment on the matter, except to contend that numbers cited by Mr. Hopkins had often turned out to be incorrect.
Gannett, the publisher of USA Today and 84 other U.S. papers, saw newspaper advertising revenue fall 34.1 percent in the first quarter, compared with the period a year earlier. Analysts say second-quarter numbers will be similarly weak. The company has taken some drastic steps to lower expenses, including cutting home delivery of The Detroit Free Press from daily to three days a week, and stopping print publication of Tucson Citizen.
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 rail, upper right.
Number of jobs reported here to be lost -- 4,500 -- might be off, but I'll bet the 15-20 percent payroll cut is on target or very close. Interesting Connell didn't dispute the pay cut report.
ReplyDeleteJIm, as suggested, I've been to the Gannettoid site and find it very hard to navigate let alone understand. And per your suggestion here a few minutes ago, went there and found nothing about the NY Times report.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the Gannettoid site leaves a lot to be desired. Enough said. Jim, can you consider hanging on at least until the end of the month?
ReplyDeleteSecondly, once again where there was smoke there was fire. Gannett officials are already spinning the bad news. What a sick pattern. They deny and lie, then they do what they said they weren't going to do, then split hairs and revise recent history to suit their purpose.
So now we know the real story as to why Ken Paulson and Craig Moon left USA TODAY. They knew what was coming. We also know they lied to us on their way out. I am not falling for no more touchy-feeling speeches in the auditorium. I am done in believing in any of these so-called leaders.
Is anyone in this company going to believe their bosses ever again? I mean all I get from my editor is a punch of PR and "stay positive" crap. Then when this stuff happens, they go into their "gee, I had no idea and I feel so bad" mode...until the next day when they've already forgotten about the people who they just laid off. Has any editor ever reached out to anyone lost in the last round?
I got into journalism because I thought their was a higher degree of trustworthiness in the profession. But MEs and DMEs these days...well, I wouldn't trust them to water my plants for a day. They work on their politicking skills, buddy up with you on coffee breaks, then stab you in the back when least expected. Lying is just a way of life for these people.
Please, everyone, just because you may survive this round, don't think everything is fine. Your time is coming unless we all act in unison to throw out these liars who call themselves editors or managers. I rather just hear the damn truth. I don't need my editor to be my lunch buddy. I need him to give it to me straight each and every day so that when this crap happens I don't feel totally betrayed. I need to know where I stand and what my future is. I don't want to be caught off guard by the whim of some editor with a hidden agenda, who does whatever corporate tells him or her.
Layoffs do not start July 8th; they start July 1st. Just heard this today...(I am a current Gannett employee.)
ReplyDeleteTara Connell has previously downplayed Gannett Blog estimates of targeted layoffs -- in December. I put the number at 3,000. She said the total would come in "significantly" below that.
ReplyDeleteBut Corporate never provided a figure of its own. In the end, based on reader reports, we came up with a total of 2,184. That did not include a final count for several papers, including USA Today. I believe that paper had another 80. Adding other unaccounted for jobs, I suspect the total was closer to 2,500.
We will all define "significantly" in different ways. But in the end, without your help, we would have had no figure at all -- because Corporate wants this kept quiet.
Shame, shame, shame on them. Every job counts, because it represents a human being, often with a family. At 2,500, we're talking about as many as 10,000 people affected. They deserve to be treated with respect.
Stand up and be counted. Please post numbers here, as memos from publishers start being distributed.
Jim, you might have stumbled a few months ago but you're back in full force when we need you the most. Can't imagine what it would be like without your blog.
ReplyDelete5:18. Good points.
ReplyDeleteI gave up on USAT a long time ago. Nothing that has happened in the last five years or so tells me that things are going to improve. This is not just about bad economic times. For me, I just don't see the heart and soul that this paper once had. Something has been stripped away. The number of under-qualified people at all levels in this organization is growing by the year. Damn, I had an encounter with someone recently who didn't know basic grammar. I am talking fundamental English. How does a person like that get hired at a newspaper of all things? Once hired, how does that person retain their job while others are driven out?
There are so many dysfunctions here that it would take more energy than I am willing to expel at this point to describe it all. I am going to sit back and watch the latest folly of the decisions over who goes and who stays. Once again, managers will fail us in profound ways. Just watch. The kiss-asses will endure once again. As you said, managers will act all weepy for about 10 minutes, but do nothing to defend good people.
Once again, this blog proves its value. Whoever those skeptical posters were doubting the July 8 layoff rumors, you need to reconsider your lives. Crowdsourcing works. This blog made news. I, for one, will miss it.
ReplyDeleteJim, I just don't understand the GCI numbers game. I believe we started with 42,000 employees in this company, and now are said to have 41,500. I know the thousands laid off, so what are we to conclude? I am told we have operated under a hiring freeze this year, yet they have been adding digital to the payroll. That may be part of it.
ReplyDeleteBravo, 5:18!
ReplyDeleteCorporations are expert at managing earnings outlooks. They do it quarter by quarter, leaking public and private hints to Wall Street. And -- surprise -- very often meeting or exceeding Wall Street's "expectations." Not taking anything away from Jim's heroic effort to flush details of Gannett's bloodletting out into the clear light of day. But there is a possibility that the leak of 4,500 to him was purposely orchestrated to make the lower, real number seem mild by comparison. The bonus is to tarnish Jim's reporting. When it comes to corporate spin, you can't out skunk a skunk.
ReplyDeleteThis is from the layoff FAQ that I originally posted on June 23; I've just moved it up to the homepage:
ReplyDeleteQ. 4,500?!
A. That's just one estimate for U.S. Community Publishing, the domestic newspaper division, which employs somewhere around 30,000 of Gannett's global workforce of 41,500 at the end of 2008.
In fact, however, I suspect Corporate is aiming at a financial target. For example, say those 4,500 each cost an average $75,000 in wages, medical and other benefits. (Remember: some worksites, such as USA Today, The Arizona Republic and The Indianapolis Star, have legacy payrolls that are much more costly than, say, the smaller community papers.) Multiply that times 4,500 and you get a savings goal of $338 million.
The original 4,500 came from our source My Boss, who has been consistently correct in the past. That number may be correct. But we will never know, because Corporate will never release a total.
ReplyDeleteOnly you and Gannettoid will be able to come up with a final tally, because I will be gone before that can take place.
I do believe, however, that the range of layoffs will be 10%, 15% and up to 20%, depending on individual worksites
Multiple posting alert. But the post is that good!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.visualeditors.com/apple/2009/02/youve-just-lost-your-job-whats-next/
This line from the NYTimes story bespeaks volumes about corporate credibility: "Gannett executives, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release the information, said the number of jobs affected ..." Does anyone really believe this is not a top down-directed move? What cowards and liars! The timing of leaking this to the NYTimes and AP today suggest the axe will fall tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteTo Sparky: You've been a real sport to put up with all this crap. Pleeeze let Jim moderate the blog a teensy bit longer, say til the end of the month, maybe on a part time basis? Pleeeeeezze!
ReplyDeleteThe 4,500 is the midpoint for 10% to 15% of the total workforce. I bet that they'll be looking for 10-15% in payroll costs... which means the middle gets whacked. Look for more $60k to $90k manager types to get it in this round... newspapers, by nature, can not function without a certain number of people and still be able to publish seven days a week. It's about costs in this round, not heads.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone else at USAT feel downright disrespected, if not insulted, that neither Hilkirk nor Hunke have bothered to communicate directly to the working staff what is really going on and why?
ReplyDeleteIs it too much to expect to be treated as dedicated working professionals who deserve to be kept informed? Is it too much to want to hear some straight talk from our top newsroom execs about what they truly expect from us?
Instead what we get are memos to politely welcome the interns and cheery Hainers. But as regards to the big fat elephant carcass parked in the middle of the newsroom, all we get is disdainful silence from the top.
Ken Paulson at least spoke about the need to work smarter as part of the process of requiring a shrinking editorial print staff to take on even more of the burden of producing content for the Web. At least Ken acknowledged the existence of the elephant. Sadly, Ken never really had any intention of trying to dispatch the elephant.
We all know Hilkirk's formula for success, espoused when he was a lowly ME: continually extract more production "on the margin" from reporters, graphics staff, copy desk and AEs. More production on the margin is the only metric that seems to matter in the newsroom, now that Hilkirk has risen to the top.
We ought to be getting smarter about deploying shrinking resources. We could be culling good ideas from the line staff, and giving some of these ideas a try. This could be an enervating place to work.
Instead inertia rules. We are doing everything the same as ever on the print side, while ramping up online duties, with the expectation that the remaining editorial staff can always "produce more on the margin."
Mandatory Twitter training for reporters and editors? When do we have time to Twitter? What do we have worth twittering about? Has anyone thought through the ramifications of requiring overworked reporting staff to take on the burden of self marketing via Tweets?
It would go a long way if Hilkirk and Hunke would deign to speak plainly to the newsroom staff. I have pushed down walls for leaders I respect. Go ahead and ask us to make specific sacrifices; but please have the courtesy to explain your rationale and convey your expectations for where these sacrifices will take us. That would be leadership. Is that too much to ask for?
You'll be less sad to know that the elimination of dark-timed, or non-filled positions, are being allowed to count against our cut total. Which means I can just wave good-bye to an already empty position on paper rather than having to call a real person in to my office, break the bad news and escort them out of the building.
ReplyDeleteSo, that's something.
Desperado, I'm glad to hear that. Any sense of how many spots that will account for?
ReplyDeleteOnce again, the doom and gloomers got it wrong. 4,500 cuts? Seriously?? WTF?? And it turns into 1,000 and includes open positions.
ReplyDelete