This is a story about an asterisk (*) mark, and Gannett's year-long effort to keep it in place.In a notice filed today, federal regulators granted the company's request to keep confidential part of an exhibit in its annual 10-K report, filed a year ago this month. The information withheld is Gannett's specific goal for digital revenues by 2011 -- a small but important detail in a $4 million bonus plan drafted two years ago for then-newly appointed Chief Digital Officer Chris Saridakis.
Today's U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission notice gives Gannett permission, on a retroactive basis, to withhold the revenue target through the end of 2011, because it's deemed confidential commercial or financial information under the Freedom of Information Act. Presumably, GCI wants to keep the information away from competitors.
In the original February 2009 10-K report, Gannett had substituted an asterisk for the revenue target; a footnote said the company was seeking the SEC's OK for that substitution. I'm not sure why it took the agency a year to issue today's authorization, however.
The bonus plan would award Saridakis (left) $4 million in February 2012, assuming he reaches specific goals over a four-year period.Here's the full text of today's filing:
Gannett Co. Inc. submitted an application under Rule 24b-2 requesting confidential treatment for information it excluded from the Exhibits to a Form 10-K filed on Feb. 25, 2009.
Based on representations by Gannett Co. Inc. that this information qualifies as confidential commercial or financial information under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), the Division of Corporation Finance has determined not to publicly disclose it. Accordingly, excluded information from the following exhibit will not be released to the public for the time period specified: Exhibit 10.16.1 through Dec. 31, 2011.
So. A media company that supports open records wants its own records closed. Do other companies do this? What's the big secret?
ReplyDeleteWhat does it really matter. They will continue to do what they do.
ReplyDeleteI would like to hear more from the employees and what is happening
rather than an overview of a greedy company that will continue to get
greedier as time goes on. Same thing, different day.
Jim,
ReplyDeleteWho cares? I think this blog is reverting back to it's earlier version where we start to crucify the executives. Let's get back to reporting on things that matter to an editor like me in a large market newspaper.
I would really like to find out from my Divisional President, Bob Dickey, what he believes a newspaper looks like in 3 years? Do we all go the way of Detroit? Should we all start writing for the web and then reverse publish for print? What is the role of a newspaper publisher in a changing media environment?
This is what I would like to know from him and the rest of the readers on this blog and your other blogs.
We are all in the same boat and we are looking for a true visionary.
10:59, As to why we're not hearing more news from employees on this site, I believe that the robots have been programmed to keep their eyes closed and mouths shut.
ReplyDelete7:04 AM
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you just ask Dickey those questions yourself? Good luck getting an answer from someone in a company that won't even report planned digital revenues.
Mr. Dickey,
ReplyDeleteWe know you read this blog.
Please send a response or an email to your employees and tell us what the newspaper looks like in 3-5 years?
What grand plan are you putting together with your corporate strategists around e-readers, mobile phones and where does that place the newspaper?
We await your answers. Please provide explicit details and not "corporate-speak" answers.
$4 million is chump change for this guy. When you are worth that much, you don't work for money.
ReplyDelete7:04 am raises valid points, and poses a good question for Dickey. But I'll turn it around, and ask 7:04 the same question: What's your vision for the company? Consider joining the debate in my new post on the subject.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you brought this up and i never would've realized it otherwise. i'm outraged over the secrecy. and the cloak of mystery, confusion and depression that hangs over the newsroom as we scramble from one webinar to the next trying to piece it all together. thank you.
ReplyDeleteDon't laugh. I have to ask this question.
ReplyDeleteDoes Gannett have to tell its shareholders and analysts the digital goals, or are the shareholders and analysts supposed to just guess like the general public is being forced to do, given recent SEC action?
2:06 pm: Seems like this could be a gray area. But: I kind of doubt GCI's obligated. Even a company based on free speech and support of open records has a right to keep secret some information that might benefit competitors if it was in the public domain.
ReplyDeleteThe goal will be $1 less than they actually earn, thus ensuring CS gets his money and keeps his mouth shut.
ReplyDelete