[Today's front page via Newseum; bigger view]
- Murdoch now circling paper even closer
- Puzzling spotlight on random executives
- Former Editor Paulson out as Freedom Forum president
- More secrecy around financial health
Monday, August 16, 2010
Recap | USA Today posts you may have missed
34 comments:
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
USA Today is going the way of AOL. It won't die, but it's not going to be a relevant player as it once was because:
ReplyDeletea. It lost a lot of its uniqueness and compelling content. Too many cutbacks, questionable personnel moves and other short-sighted acts that I am somewhat familiar with. You just don't get those "wow" stories, illustrative graphics and bonus sections like you use to. I see virtually no late-breaking news/sports anymore. Seems no one is interested in driving the product or watching over the little things. It's like they're waving the white flag but hoping readers won't notice.
b. Errors are hurting its credibility. I don't see the number of mistakes in the NYT (online or print) that I have seen in the last year or two in USA Today. The errors aren't always grammatical. Often, the mistakes are silly things like the mislabeling of factoid/map or a caption that misidentifies a person, places or thing. Stuff you see in small papers and amateur blogs.
c. USA Today is trying to play catchup in the digital world while neglecting the very things that built the brand. Pride, enterprise, high standards, etc.
Lack of leadership on almost every level and a continuing culture of fear are probably the culprits behind the USA Today decline. This wouldn't be the first news/media product to fall victim to mismanagement and a lack of competency that is masked by a threatening environment.
The only culture of fear I see nowadays is fear that we're going to get laid off.
ReplyDeleteIt is impossible for anyone to work wholeheartedly or fully at USA Today. Permanent damange has been done to the entire staff no matter where you work or in what department. Advertising, marketing, usatoday.com, production and specially the news divisions are waiting for immediate and large cuts in staffing any day now. Observe how the Tracking the Transformation intranet site has gone dormant and quiet for weeks and the management committee (many of them apparently facing the guillotine) and David Hunke's new "Strategy" committee or council have disappeared behind closed doors for weeks now. Is there anybody at USA Today from the top down who is not looking to get out at the first offer. Probably more work time is being spent on sending out resumes and trying to find contacts than on doing the jobs you were hired to do.
ReplyDeleteIs anyone paying any attention to what the 'big thinkers' have done to the OTHER top national publication and prime GCI profit-maker, amid all the turmoil at USAT? USA WEEKEND has been gutted beyond the standard GCI massive gutting. It made tons of money when it was left alone to, well, make lots of money. (Much more than USAT, btw.) A different story now since USAT editorial was supposed to magically 'take over' USAW edit operations 'seamlessly' in 2009/2010 and no reader, advertiser or newspaper publisher would notice the difference. Uh-huh ... Oh well. GCI is as GCI does.
ReplyDeleteWhen I pick up the Sunday local occasionally, I rarely see USAW. Actually....I haven't seen a USATW in months now that I think about it.
ReplyDeleteIf USA Weekend shrinks their page size any more, we're going to be able to stick it to the front page as a fold-out post-it note.
ReplyDeleteExactly. Some financial/business 'genius' there, huh? Call it an inconsequential piece of editorial fluff (although it could often be darn good inconsequential fluff that happened to sell a ton of ads), USAW was first and foremost a prime moneymaker for GCI. But leave it to the well-paid suits to find a way to screw that up. Oh well, if USAW's fortunes continue to plunge, the suits will just pull the plug, blame it on 'the little peeps' who were dispatched to execute their lofty vision and move on to destroying whatever other profitable GCI properties remain. It's not like they're accountable for failure, right?
ReplyDeleteIf (and that's a big IF) there are to be any layoffs at USA Today, it doesn't sound like any formal announcement will come today.
ReplyDeleteMaybe Thursday after most of the Monday paper is completed? You have to be careful how you time these things so that it doesn't upset the overall operation or hurt the product.
ReplyDeleteThere was a major layoff - 1 person so far. And no formal announcement. He was crucial to the print side. Guess that tells you what the future plans are for print???
ReplyDeleteClearly, bringing USAW into the USAT infrastructure was long overdue. Sometimes a business actually needs to be run like... a business.
ReplyDeleteAnd honestly:
Has there been any perceptable change in the USAW product with the "massive" staff downsizing and fold into the USAT Life section?
Has ad revenue been affected with product size reduction?
How about installing a new USAW President? Any effect there?
Is the entire newspaper industry in turmoil and is USAW struggling to retain distribution outlets?
So keep it real, do whatever the tools allow to create a better product, bring in some more of those rockin' Amish heater ads, grow market share with compelling content (!), and belly up to the table and take a big bite of the humble pie that Gannett has been serving up to the rest of us for a very, very long time.
12:21 makes some good points. I don't agree with most of Gannett's decisions because I think they're harmful to actual newsgathering and publication, not to mention morale. But folding USA Weekend into the Life department was a solid decision on both the business and the editorial fronts.
ReplyDeleteThat's not to say that I don't feel bad for the people who were laid off or for the people at USA TODAY who've had more work dumped on them, but before, it was almost as if someone had sat down and asked themselves "What is the least efficient way we can run a publication with way more people than necessary?" and USA Weekend was born.
Other than bringing in revenue, USA Weekend is a huge content joke. Its "senior editors" are pretentious, solicitous to Life staff they've merged with and are trying to boss around. USAW staffers are overpaid and under worked. Mr. Hunke, are you listening?
ReplyDelete@9:53: You forgot the fascinating sense of entitlement.
ReplyDeleteLast three remarks on USAW, respectfully, seems to be coming a narrow perspective from newspaper folks. Here's the broader view: Regardless of one's opinion of the content, it made a heckuva lot of money -- yes, far, far more than USAT -- before the merger. Grossly inefficient? Desperately needing to be "run like a business"? Really? With just two dozen in editorial responsible for a product that made so much more than the Nation's Newspaper did with literally hundreds in editorial? Huh? USAW's "fat" staffing picture pre-merger wouldn't even match what GCI employs to run one of its vast assortment of minor-league newspapers.
ReplyDeleteIf you're referring to costs such as photography, here's a stunning revelation: The product doesn't work on a BUSINESS level if it doesn't look like a magazine. Sorry, newspaper level of photo quality doesn't cut it. USAW competes with Parade, not a newspaper. Parade is happy to spend what it takes to make the cover photo work.
Look beyond the envy-motivated 'well, they're just getting the same medicine as the rest of us, so good!' Try looking at the magazine product five years ago as opposed to now. Yeah, the book was much thicker with those rockin' Amish ads, as well as those from HP and others. Want to blame the drop in the overall decline of print content? Sure, that's part of the equation. But far, far from the whole.
I think some things need to be clarified here: I have no doubt at all that USAW was more PROFITABLE than USAT if you're basing that soley on profit margins. But there is no way in hell USAW has brought in more REVENUE than USAT. No. Way. Unless someone can prove otherwise.
ReplyDeleteWell, if USAW made more in net profit for year after year than USAT, isn't that what matters bottom line? Would you rather have $10 million in total revenue but only $1 in net profit, or $1 million in total revenue but $50,000 in net profit? Which model is healthier overall for a company? (I'm making those figures up, btw.)
ReplyDeleteAs for other remarks: Sure, GCI suits have made USAW leaner, meaner, more efficient, blah blah. But it's made a negative impact on quality of product and, as a result, its competitive edge with Parade and overall salability. If you want to keep pushing the 'we can even make it leaner by continuing to forcefed newspaper-quality value into the product versus letting it be a competitive magazine," then you're essentially saying that it should evolve into the Sunday newspaper magazine equivalent of Sports Weekly (with far fewer pages). I'm sorry, but that's a losing proposition. (I'm a BIG fan of Sports Weekly, btw. But it's not the right model to pattern USAW after here folks.)
I'm not moaning about the loss of editorial jobs here. That's the way companies are run today. Nearly every good worker in McLean (and, yeah, the whole 'McLean staffers live like royalty and coast their way through life' sentiments I see here are also misguided and wrong, but that's another day's argument) realizes that their time with the company very well may be coming to an end sooner rather than later. There is real fear, anxiety in that building now every day, and it's been that way for several years now.
But I am saying that this USAT/USAW merger has so far been an ill-conceived and executed one from a BUSINESS standpoint. That's all, pure and simple.
On the 1:48 USAW comments, it seems you’d like to take the gloves off. Well, here goes. First and foremost, to repeatedly say that USAW had more ad revenue than USAT is true. Last year, in 2009. Only. The prior 10-15 years? USAT, all the way. Ask anyone who knows.
ReplyDeleteNext. Go ahead and count the inches of USAW edit content created in a week, and divide by the number of people available to pull together those date-nut bar recipes and important celeb tidbits. What? Not much to count, is there? So cutting the USAW edit staff in half had what effect on the actual product? None.
More? Okay. Once again, and read this real slowly… as goes the newspaper business (those despicable, dirty little rags) so goes USAW. USAW is inserted in newspapers, so if they fail, USAW has no distribution outlet. Pray for newpapers, don’t huff about them.
Next. Sorry, we all dream of being poets and artists with rich patrons who sponsor us but if you sit in front of a computer all day, one that was paid for by a business, and if you sit in a chair that was paid for by a business, and if you work in a building that was paid for by a business, and if you have a paycheck that was created by a business…. well, you work for a business.
The sacred covenant that once was USAW has been broken up and down, no doubt. And indeed the people who lost jobs and hopes and dreams all deserve fantastic new horizons. But. To think that USAW or any other publication in the world is not a business is outright silly and naïve, and perhaps all your angst and frustration might be better spent by carving out a new niche in the world. A niche that earns a gold star and an employee of the month award for every photo, every word, every comma, every period. But please, whatever happens, don’t call it a business.
OK, 9:22, up until your parting shot, you presented a fair and well-reasoned counter argument. So a sincere thanks for providing an alternative perspective with good context. We can agree to disagree on the BUSINESS impact of what's happened to USAW. (I never presented this as anything but a business-framed argument, btw. Did you really read my posts? I don't know where you're getting 'arts patrons' and gold stars and awards for 'every comma, every period.' But it sure doesn't come from anything I've posted.)
ReplyDeleteThat said: The true test of how this impacts USAW as a long-term moneymaker for GCI -- aside, obviously, from ad sales -- will be whether its current roster of 500 non-GCI newspapers continues to carry it. If Parade smells blood in the water (and Parade has quite a good 'nose for blood,' trust me), it will present an argument to non-GCI newspapers that it's presenting a superior product. So if those non-GCI newspapers over the next several years goes from 500 to 450 to 400, etc., then I'd think you'd have to concede that I made my point. If they remain steady or close to 500, then I'll be happy to concede that GCI did a smart thing from a business standpoint, eat my humble pie and like it.
Okay 9:38, well said and well taken. Your frustration is understandable, but frankly, there have been many more astoundingly dumb and anguishing business moves throughout GCI, USAT and USAW than the ones you have voiced. While we might all have to eat that GCI humble pie, nobody claims to like it.
ReplyDeletePax.
Surely I am not reading your "newspaper vs. magazine quality" complaint correctly. Are you implying that the editorial quality of USA Weekend has declined in the hands of USA Today staff?
ReplyDeletePax, thanks and we can ALL agree on that one, pardner!
ReplyDelete10:12, I'm ready to exit this conversation. All relevant points have been made. But for the record: I'm not saying a magazine is better than a newspaper. I'm saying a magazine isn't a newspaper. Just like Sports Weekly (again, I'm a BIG fan, especially come fantasy preview time) isn't a newspaper, nor is it a weekly newspaper Sunday magazine insert. My greater point here is that all three require different editorial (visual and written) approaches to work as a BUSINESS. That's it. Over and out. Thanks all (and Jim!) for providing the forum here.
Well, I'll hop in here…
ReplyDeleteI also used to work for USAW.
Gannett doesn't give a crap about USAW, but it should. I totally understand thinking that the content is frivolous. But the magazine commands high ad rates because its circulation is roughly 23 million. USAT's circ is less than 2 million. We were told that USAW earned a bigger profit than USAT some years, and USAT earned more than USAW some years. So let's just say both have been big earners.
Now that the Edit dept, which was cut by more than half, has been rolled into USAT's Life dept, the magazine isn't what it was. I'm not saying it was amazing before, but it did a pretty decent job of competing with Parade, which it must do continually to retain current and recruit new carrier papers so it can keep up its circulation numbers so it can keep up its ad rates.
With new "leadership," less staff and less money, USAW is struggling to compete now. The overstretched Life dept wasn't eager to shift more manpower away from the daily paper and the website to help the remaining handful of USAW Edit staffers, so it's not hard to understand why the editorial quality has slipped further. Plus, there was no incentive for Lifers to help a struggling magazine that the parent company clearly has decided is destined for failure.
The Edit consolidation probably was a temporary step to keep the magazine going until they can drain everything possible out of it, and then they’ll simply fold it, or maybe sell it, if there's any interest.
The double-digit % profits that USAW made -- even last year! -- likely have been used to help fund other Gannett papers that have been struggling financially. If USAW disappears, then what?
I'm not even going to be bothered to be insulted by a former USAW staffer who claims to know what's going on in the Life section.
ReplyDeleteNice try, though.
I thought the much bally-hooed "real problem" with USA Weekend being officially part of USA Today was the assumption that the local newspapers view USAT as the competition and would not want USAW inserted in their newspapers.
ReplyDeleteI highly doubt that Life's talented staff is ruining your precious magazine. We aren't talking Harper's or The New Yorker here, you know.
It's not like they're actively ruining the magazine by writing, editing and laying out pages poorly! That's not what I said. The USAW staff was gutted, and some Lifers were nice enough to help, but others just flat-out said, "No, I'm not going to help." As many of you know from first-hand experience, it's hard to maintain a publication after a lot of your coworkers get laid off and you lose resources. Life isn't at fault -- they didn't ask for this. Neither did USAW. This was a corporate concoction.
ReplyDeleteAnd the magazine's content isn't "precious" -- hell, I know it was full of recipes and quick tips and other stuff that's "lame" because it's just fluffy features -- but readers and papers liked it. And the money it made was pretty nice, too.
To say the quality of USAW copy has suffered since the merger is a big joke. Life staffers are doing double-duty supplying content, and by and large, the quality of reporting and writing is WAY above the freelancers who USAW counted on to fill the magazine. Unfortunately, USAW continues to pay some freelancers for fluff, but there's nothing for Life staffers (writers and editors) who contribute. Just mostly hassle. Not even a - hey, have dinner on us. I can tell you this, the USAW senior editors (there are no other kind on the mag) aren't any more overworked than they were forced to give up private offices and sit over by the peons.
ReplyDelete@10:52: I thought you were "exiting this conversation because all relevant points have been made." (And boy howdy, if that doesn't reek of pretentiousness, bossiness and a sense of entitlement, I don't know what does.)
ReplyDeleteListen, and listen carefully: Bylines from all corners of the Life newsroom are pouring into USAW. USAT editors are editing and trimming USAW stories even though they, too, have a million other things to do. I don't hear anyone complaining, other than to wonder what the fuss is.
So nobody is telling you "no" -- other than to say, "Um, no, we aren't going to move a longtime staffer from his desk, knock out a wall and create a corner office sheathed in glass."
By the same token, no "nice" Life staffers are kindly offering to pitch in. That's total BS. We're professionals. We have been told what to do, what needs to be done and we do it. And we do it well, which is more than I can say for some of the senior editors and their (boo-hoo) reduced stable of freelancers who weren't all that great to begin with.
So just please stop whining about how your staff was gutted and how great USA Weekend used to be. Roll up your sleeves and get to work like the rest of us.
Or if you really think USA Weekend is a shadow of its former self, why don't you quit on principle? It's a noble thing to do -- and we'll have one less pretentious and bossy person getting in our way.
Questions: How many people work in the Life section -- both at Tyson's and out in the field? How many of those people came from USAW?
ReplyDeleteIs this debate/tension a well-known, openly-discussed issue, or is it only being expressed on this comment thread?
I'd venture to say you have a Gannett Blog exclusive. The "debate" as you call it is out in the open only because the USA Weekend individual tried to bite that hand that feeds them (GCI), grossly miscalculated and instead took a big chunk out of the hand that's trying to help (Life).
ReplyDeleteJim -- People across the company always have looked down on the magazine, but it used to be that nobody knew who we were or where we sat or what we did, so they didn't think about it that much. Heck, USA Weekend doesn't even have its own label on this blog! :)
ReplyDelete@2:03 p.m. -- It's two different commenters, and I don't work there anymore. I thought I made that clear in my first post when I wrote, "Well, I'll hop in here… I also used to work for USAW." I don't think the other person is there anymore, either.
The amount of money saved by laying off those people was a drop in the bucket compared with the magazine's enormous operating budget. Was it worth it? It would have spared Life a lot of "just mostly hassle" if USAW could have continued on as usual. Like I said before, Life already had enough to do -- you didn't need this magazine, too. Can you imagine doing the newspaper, website content AND the magazine for the next five or 10 years? I almost hope corporate's endgame is to put it out to pasture.
Anyway, if you think the magazine is better now than it was before, that's great. The torch is yours now to defend the magazine's honor when people from other Gannett publications come here and trash it, saying it's useless crap and canned filler.
Don't underestimate the USA TODAY staff. Most came from Gannett newspapers, and anyone who has worked at a small newspaper knows exactly what that means.
ReplyDeleteCan we do it -- put out the newspaper, feed the website AND publish the magazine -- for the next five to 10 years? Yes. Is it wise to overload people? No. Do we have a choice? Not as long as we're employed by Gannett.
One of the hardest things for newspaper people to learn, and to learn early on, is that the newspaper will get out, whether you're there or not. Same for weekly publications.
So it must be salt in the wound to realize that USAW is still being published with no perceptible drop in quality.
However, that's no excuse to come here and take shots at the Life section, which, as far as I know, tried very hard to be welcoming to a traumatized USAW staff.
Has anyone seen Parade magazine lately? It's USAW's competitor, and it's as big a turd as USAW. Bottom line: Feeding people junk copy with bogus ads for state quarters and Amish heaters is not going to make money in the long run. From "Lord of the Flies:" Kill the pig. Make him dead.
ReplyDelete6:12, don't be so mean. Neither USA Weekend nor Parade are crap. They are what they are -- light reading that is mildly interesting inserted between ads.
ReplyDeleteIt's unclear to me what the big difference is between them, to be honest, other than that Parade has that Ask Marilyn column.
How newspapers decide which to go with must be predicated on something other than content and design. Don't the magazines make some sort of deal with the newspapers?
Also, the fear that papers will drop USA Weekend in droves because it's part of USA Today doesn't ring true. It's not like the connection is well-hidden. The logo even looks like USA Today's, except that it says "Weekend."
So I don't get where the dire predictions of USA Weekend's demise are coming from. The only change I can see -- other than the seismic changes all print is suffering -- is that USAW is being put out with USAT resources. The Life staff is doing a lot of the heavy lifting, but the USAW staff is still making editorial decisions.