Thursday, August 12, 2010

Documents: Pub revealed paper's finances to staff; deposition hints at why Montgomery's Brown quit

When Scott Brown resigned as publisher of The Montgomery Advertiser in the summer of 2008, Gannett gave no details explaining his sudden departure.

Now, newly emerged court documents hint at one possible explanation. They open a rare window on the internal operations of a Gannett daily on the verge of joining scores of others in laying off thousands of workers, while Corporate pleaded hard times during the industry's meltdown.

One document is a sworn deposition by former Sports Editor David "L.C." Johnson, who is suing the small Alabama paper in federal court over his dismissal in November 2009. Johnson claims he was fired after complaining to management that his staff wasn't being paid overtime, in violation of federal law.

Gannett denies Johnson's allegations, and says he was fired for poor performance.

Profit margin said 28.8%
Under questioning by an attorney for Gannett, Lynlee Palmer of Birmingham, Ala., Johnson claims Brown had taken a highly unusual step not long before he was forced from his job.

Brown called the Advertiser's staff together for an all-hands meeting, then revealed what ordinarily would be confidential information, Johnson says: more than a dozen pages of company documents disclosing the Advertiser's profit margin -- the amount of money it earned as a percentage of its revenue. That figure was 28.8%, or $11.8 million, Johnson told Palmer.

Those figures align with information I received in separate internal documents from a reader in November 2008.

'More belt tightening'
Brown's presentation painted a gloomy outlook, the deposition shows, and was apparently designed to prepare the staff for rough times ahead: "Basically, we're going to have to do more belt tightening,'' Johnson testified. This was when supplies as basic as notebooks were already scarce, he said.

Johnson initially claims the meeting occured perhaps in 2007, but later says it came just as Brown was shown the door. That was about June 12, 2008, when Gannett announced a new publisher in a press release saying only that Brown had resigned. Two months later, Gannett launched the first of three mass layoffs nationwide.

Johnson brought his suit in U.S. District Court in October 2009. I recently obtained hundreds of pages of case depositions and related documents, some of them filed about six weeks ago. (Here's a deposition explainer.)

Publisher: 'I resigned'
Brown also gave a deposition in the Johnson suit. He said he could not reveal details surrounding his departure because they were part of a confidential agreement with Gannett that prevented him from speaking publicly, his deposition shows.

"The company and I came to a mutual agreement, and I resigned,'' he told Johnson's attorney, Heather Leonard, also of Birmingham.

Although Brown doesn't provide a reason, Johnson's assertion about the release of sensitive financial documents -- if true -- would likely anger Corporate, once that became known.

Gannett laid off 600 newspaper employees, and cut 400 other jobs, in August 2008. That was followed by another layoff of more than 2,200 in December 2008, the month after Johnson was dismissed. A third layoff, involving more than 1,400 workers, took place in July 2009.

Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write jimhopkins[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the rail, upper right.

[Image: today's Advertiser, Newseum]

8 comments:

  1. This profit margin should come as a surprise to no one.

    "Advertiser's profit margin -- the amount of money it earned as a percentage of its revenue. That figure was 28.8%, or $11.8 million, Johnson told Palmer."

    Back when all newspapers were crying the blues about declines in advertising revenue, 2008-09, there was a dirty little secret few knew or would share - despite the declines, almost ALL newspapers were still making a healthy profit. The net income of even the "worse" of the Gannett dailies was on the plus side - WAY on the plus side.

    Laying off employees when you are making a profit margin of 28% and $11 million in net income would seem insane in most segments of private industry.

    Sadly, in OUR business, it isn't whether or not you make a profit - it is whether or not you make the profit your stockholders EXPECT you to make.

    Pitiful.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is an extremely interesting story. Before my paper was sold to Gannett, we had meetings during which financial figures were shared between management and staff. Once Gannett purchased the company, these meetings stopped. Now I understand why this happened. I bet the people at corporate are not happy with this story on your blog. Good job, Jim. Keep going!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yep, so it's been at The Journal News for a long time. The concept of unpaid furloughs may have been unveiled at The Journal News over a decade ago when then publisher Gary Sherlock had everyone take three weeks off without pay.

    And not because the paper was losing money, but because it was making less than corporate demanded.

    Next thing we know, Sherlock's riding around in a new company paid Mercedes. Beautiful.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jim, don't forget your earlier reporting on paper-by-paper profit margins, which placed the Advertiser's at 27.83 percent for the first three quarters of 2007. That raises an interesting question here - did Gannett corporate order layoffs even though the paper had increased its profit margin despite the economic downturn that was hitting in 2008?
    http://gannettblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/documents-reveal-double-digit-profit.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. Good point. Also, just FYI: I've already linked to that earlier post about paper-by-paper profit margins in this post.

    I didn't include this in the post, but: Johnson also told the attorney that the Advertiser's 28.8% profit margin was down one percentage point from a year before.

    Now, we don't know the exact timeline for any of this. Brown could have been referring to year-to-date 2008. Or his figures could have been for the last full year: 2007.

    In any case, Johnson is recalling from memory, so his numbers and those provided to me may be much closer than we realize.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You guys need to take an econ class. Revenue tanked. People and expenses were going to get whacked regardless of whether they decided to shoot for a 28 percent profit margin or a 5 percent profit margin.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The profit margin numbers could all be true.

    Let's assume that the Advertiser had a strong Q4 in 2007, which would have pushed the 27.83 percent from the first three quarters to 29-something for the year.

    In that case, then the 28.8 percent profit margin for the first couple of quarters of 2008 could have been down 1 percentage point from 2007.

    Regardless, that's hardly a good reason to lay people off. Newspapers are killing off their staffs to keep 30 percent profit margins in the short term, and that's a no-win situation for the long haul. Weaker content will catch up with them eventually, particularly in a digital world.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It was never about losing money. It was about keeping those profit margins at the upper end of expectations. But in order to do that, Gannett has strip mined its papers -- even more so with the coming regional production centers. When an individual newspaper can neither edit nor print itself, that newspaper cannot be said to possess much of value beyond a brand name. And so Gannett hastens the day of its demise.

    ReplyDelete

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.