Saturday, February 27, 2010

At the Crystal Palace, talk of dueling brand names

"As if the USA Today did not have enough trouble, they now will have to compete with their own parent in whose brand is bigger than the other!"

-- Anonymous@1:53 p.m. today, commenting on speculation that Corporate is now working on a new multimillion-dollar advertising campaign designed to burnish Gannett's brand name.


  1. Gannett vs. USAT. Ali vs. Frazier. The Thrilla in e-Villa.

  2. I am so glad Gracia Martore is getting paid several million dollars each year and part of her output is a new tagline.

    "Gannett...taking from you to give to us" seems like a more appropriate tagline. Or better yet, "Gannett...We don't just fire employees, we humiliate them"

    Maybe we can come up with a few for USA Today.

    "USA Today...We are on Gracia's shitlist...are you?"
    "USA Today...Hiding from Corporate since 1982"

    it is sad to see so much fighting between Gannett and USA Today, but the reality is Gannett has no respect for USAT and the feeling is mutual.

  3. That quote is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. "Gannett" is a brand name on pay stubs and stock certificates only. The only way USAT will have to compete against a Gannett-centric campaign is for resources, nothing else.

  4. I always wondered why Gannett never leveraged its name. There it was -- and still is -- the biggest news organization in the world, yet its Gannett News Service was -- and still is -- a starving orphan sequestered away in a castle cellar. Look at all the companies that have established themselves in the national or world information media from scratch -- Bloomberg, Craigslist, even the Onion, Politico, Huffington Post and, and it's clear that Gannett has no instinct for branding or innovation. The data centers had potential, but were doomed from the start for lack of investment on the parent's part. The moms sites, which seem to be fizzling badly, were also doomed because they offer no content other than a chat room with redundant subject matter. The name Gannett will go the route of Studebaker, Burroughs and Tandy as footnotes in industrial history.

  5. Gannett News Service is hardly the biggest news organization in the world. News Corp., for example, employs far more journalists than the entire Gannett Company. GNS is a pathetic shell of what it used to be. In New York, Gannett isn't even allowing GNS to fill vacant positions. If Gannett papers in New York want Albany coverage, they have to take it out of their own budget, instead of pooling the cost like they used to.

  6. Here in Portland, Maine, Gannett isn't even mentioned in the copyrights on the newscasts on WCSH anymore; it's "Pacific and Southern Company, Inc." instead. Yeah, I know, it's a Gannett division, but still...I remember the prominent Gannett branding of WLVI-TV/Boston back in the 80s, so it really rankles.


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.