As we move toward hubs, we will put multiple papers at risk. For instance, if Indy was printing the Louisville, Cincy and Indy papers and it had the massive press failure, all three papers would go down. And you wouldn't be able to turn to Louisville for an emergency save, because it would no longer have a press.
You can have similar problems with merged copy desks. What if a massive power outage causes a copy desk hub to go down. You could lose copyediting abilities at all papers.
Now, add in the fact that a production hub will never care about the individual papers the way on-site staff do, and you can see what a mess this is.
Will we move forward with them anyway? Sure, because they'll save money. Will they make papers even less relevant at a time when they're already struggling? You betcha.
Earlier: C-J Publisher Arnie Garson's videotaped press conference. Plus: Unfortunate timing for Garson's industry "is alive and well" op-ed article yesterday
[Photo: too many eggs in a basket]
Once again, Jim, you're going for the low-hanging fruit and catering to the lowest common denominator of reader.
ReplyDeleteYou're giving credence to a reader's comment who says the C-J disaster is a wake-up call for Gannett's hub-and-spoke press model. Except the C-J isn't part of a hub-and-spoke network. It has an expensive, modern press right in Louisville. And yet it still happened.
Look at Binghamton. Can you honestly say Binghamton, Ithaca and Elmira were in a better position by printing on three antiquated presses than they are now printing on a new press in Binghamton? If the Binghamton press goes down, sure, they're farther away from a Gannett press, but all newspapers -- Gannett or otherwise -- have contingency plans to print elsewhere. The C-J's contingency plan is to print in Indianapolis, which it did. In Binghamton, the contingency plan calls for the papers to be printed an hour south at a non-Gannett press in Scranton, Pa.
Point is, a lot of newspapers are being printed on much higher-quality presses than they ever were before hub-and-spoke was implemented. Instead of immediately finding some evil, negative spin to put on things, try using that journalistic integrity you were known for as a reporter and editor.
What happened in Louisville is terrible. And what happened in Louisville is neither a case study for or against hub-and-spoke.
I disagree with 1:37 and think this is a case study of what is going wrong in Gannett these days. It is what happens when you shave expenses by not paying for routine maintenance. The hubs are another method of shaving pennies and the poster Jim refers to is right to talk about the dangers. What should concern corporate is there is no emergency plan to deal with these problems. Louisville just didn't publish, which is not the result the suits want. Did it not occur to one of those earning six-figure salaries that something like this might happen some day? Why didn't they have an emergency backup plan? Did it cost too much to think of a day when the presses might not work?
ReplyDeleteAs a former Gannett employee, I have seen first hand how management has their heads up their butts where it concerns maintenance. I am surprised that the newspapers make it out the door at NNCO. They are using very antiquated CTP equipment that is being driven by NT 4.0 with no backups of the computers. No one at Agfa knows the system except for one guy and the cost is outrageous. There is no contingency in place if the two press lines go down. No longer can Richmond pickup the USAT slack(Richmond prints in INDY)...there has been talk about ridding Mansfield of all production.
ReplyDeleteI can foresee a day when the NNCO papers fail to publish because of mismanagement.
It is not just maintenance, it is the antiquated equipment which has not been updated in five years. Because of the recession, corporate put off software updates and other improvements because of the costs. Yes, the expenses are considerable, but as Louisville's experience shows, they are necessary to get the product out of the plant. Plus the backlog in needed updates is going to have to be paid some day, and it won't get any cheaper. I personally think that corporate has made a deliberate decision to bleed white the community newspaper division and pour everything into USAT.
ReplyDelete9:30 -- Interesting that a company that is still profitable would choose not to pay for needed equipment updates because it's too expensive in a down economy yet continue to pay bonuses to top executives. To 1:37 -- Am I going after low-hanging fruit with that comment or pointing out one of the largest problems within the organization.
ReplyDeleteGoing after low-hanging fruit isn't necessarily a bad thing. Stupidity is digging for fruit that's hard to find when you are surrounded by easy pickings that are every bit as tasty.
My goal isn't necessarily to go after the easy pickin's. (Although, like many understaffed sites, I must look for ways to be as productive as possible).
ReplyDeleteInstead, I'm always looking for provocative posts -- i.e., posts that will provoke a discussion. Like this one.
1:37 -- Thanks for using the phrase "hub and spoke." It makes this discussion a lot easier.
ReplyDeleteWhen a hub breaks, all spokes are useless until the hub is fixed. That's the point.
You seem to be arguing that the Louisville situation isn't relevant because the paper is using a newish press. I say it is relevant because the hubs would likely be using similar technology. If a newer press can have a catastrophic failure, as this one did, it can take multiple papers down in the process.
What would have happened if Indy couldn't come to the rescue? Were the New York papers in a better position? Yes, they probably were because the odds of all three having catastrophic press failures simultaneously would be far worse than those of a single press going down. That means odds are at least two of the three papers could get out. Also, one of the functioning papers might have been able to aid the one with problems. With a hub failure, you're probably going to have to run to another company to print your paper. They're going to charge you through the nose and they aren't going to respond as quickly as you'd like.
At a minimum, the hub system means earlier deadlines for content, such as late school board meetings or sports scores. It also risks later delivery when bad weather, especially in winter, slows delivery of papers back to home markets.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I think it's a false argument to suggest that Binghamton and other papers have historically had one one choice: an antiquated press, or moving printing to a hub.
In the not-so-distant past, these newspapers would have replaced old presses with new ones. Put another way, if the hub-and-spoke model is so good, why didn't Gannett make that switch years ago? Surely it was considered, but rejected because of downsides.
@9:30am, um, no, corporate is not pouring money into USAT. They've had their CCI upgrade pushed back for about the 5th year in a row, their reporters struggle with old laptops that are only just now being replaced, and they've had as many buyouts/layouts as anyone else. We both can speculate where the profits go, but I can assure you they aren't going to USAT.
ReplyDeleteJim is a basket case who works well as an example here.
ReplyDeleteHis blog has almost no financial support, and he did not try to create a backup plan until he had gone bonkers last summer. There were no spokes, just a hub that had stopped turning.
Can you honestly say Binghamton, Ithaca and Elmira were in a better position by printing on three antiquated presses than they are now printing on a new press in Binghamton?
ReplyDeleteThe print quality is better on the press in Johnson City. Unfortunately, Ithaca and Elmira have earlier deadlines than they used to when they had on-site printing. The content is weaker in those papers, but at least the colors are prettier.
Why is corporate favoring USAT with new computers when out in the field, we are struggling with stuff that only runs Windows XP?
ReplyDeleteThe content would be weaker regardless of whether they printed on a newer press or older press. Find one Gannett paper with stronger content now compared to a few years ago. You won't. Has nothing to do with the physical press.
ReplyDeleteAll I'm saying is it's absolutely silly to use the Louisville press meltdown as an example of Gannett's so-called failing hub strategy when -- wait for it -- Louisville isn't part of a hub.
Perhaps I should have phrased my post more precisely. Still, I wrote: ". . . the potential risks ELSEWHERE in Gannett's growing hub system." (CAPS added.)
ReplyDeleteWhy pick on the messenger, 1:52? The collapse in Louisville points to a number of weaknesses in how corporate is running this concern, from lack of interest in maintenance, to irrational cost-cutting measures that includes Hubs. Would Louisville have happened if corporate had budgeted more money instead of lavishing bonuses on execs.?
ReplyDeleteLouisville is not part of a printing hub, it's true, but Louisville is an editing hub -- it edits some copy and produces the pages for Greenville and Asheville. All three papers use the same networked CCI system for writing, editing, and page design. If there is a catastrophic CCI failure, three newspapers might not publish some night. In its zeal to cut expenses, Gannett is putting too many eggs in too few baskets.
ReplyDeleteIn Louisville's case, the "new" press that went online about six years ago had electrical, software, and other problems from the beginning -- and those have never been fixed. The German press manufacturer was not held accountable. There have been many printing disruptions, and those warnings were not heeded. Therefore, what happened in Louisville Saturday night was inevitable. Management is to blame for not initiating adequate safeguards to prevent what happened. Employees in Louisville should pressure the publisher to take all necessary steps, and then hold him and all production managers accountable.
Courier-Journal Publisher Arnie Garson has now distributed a FAQ to employees regarding yesterday's press failure. After reading the document, I suggest these follow-up questions:
ReplyDelete1. How many hours are devoted daily/weekly/monthly to press maintenance now vs. a year ago? Three years ago?
2. What role, if any, did job reductions play in changes in maintenance schedules?
3. How much revenue did the C-J lose as a result of the press failure? What percentage is that of annual revenue?
Are advertisers in the Sunday Derby paper demanding make-good ads or refunds? How much revenue does that amount to?
ReplyDeleteWhat steps are you taking to ensure the press does not have another catastrophic failure?
I hear GPC has artists who are probably high school graduates with very little design skills. At our paper most advertisers are furious at the mistakes and are planning on pulling advertising. The niche pubs are asking our staff to create the ads and are afraid to have GPC design their ads. Plus, there are very few real artists left at our site and this is causing issues and more. This is a very real problem for Gannett, especially since there are only three sites on board. What will happen when all 83 Gannett papers are on board? I see lost revenue at every site. Do they think Client Solutions Group, the corporate idea, will save ad revenue, when they unveil it in the fall? My gut instincts tell me they will probably charge current customers for these service and also offer online, Web creation and more — but for a cost. What will happen to the local mom and pop advertisers? I think they are India bound. Scary but true.
ReplyDelete