Anonymous@7:47 a.m. posted a comment last week, listing names of 10 senior USA Today managers expected to be let go in a round of layoffs at Gannett's struggling marquee title.
I've now confirmed that one of the individuals listed in the original comment -- an advertising executive -- was laid off yesterday, suggesting the poster has inside information, and that a planned reorganization appears to be underway.Following is the edited version of the original comment; I'm withholding some of the names pending more information.
"As was predicted earlier and announced by Hunke that USA Today would be a much smaller company, expect a major management shake up at USA Today next week with Davis and Motiff overseeing eliminations in usatoday.com (Webber), advertising (XXXXX, Dewar), marketing (Lavington, XXXXX, XXXXX) and circulation (XXXXX, XXXXX, XXXXX, and Lindquist is already retiring). Editorial layoffs will take place in next two weeks with Davis, Motiff and Hillkirk announcing consolidations."
What's up? 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.
So the poster makes an obvious guess and is batting .100. You won't even make a little league team with that batting percentage. I might pay attention when they are batting over .500, especially on their own list. True inside information would push them more to 1.000.
ReplyDeleteAlso, again quoting someone that already miss-quoted Hunke is lame. If nothing else, please make sure you check the obvious crowd-sourced comments - the least you can do and I'm sure you'll do the least as long as you earn some income from this site.
It appears we've struck a nerve.
ReplyDelete6:04 it is 1.000
ReplyDelete6:04 I get your point now. .100 it is
ReplyDeleteJust stating the facts, Jim - something you rarely do. Call it what you want.
ReplyDeleteHave another scotch Hunke. Enjoy this moment.
ReplyDeleteSounds like someone is nervous that the lid on the reorganization and coming layoffs isn't as secure as they thought and that the other nine names (and the timing) won't be lucky guesses, either.
ReplyDeleteIf it makes you feel any better, 6:04, that stuff never is truly secure. The big difference is that Jim's blog gets leaks out more quickly to more employees than the usual rumor mill.
What the batting average of the anonymous poster is remains to be seen, but at least someone is taking a swing at getting information to us so that when the announcements (or non-announcements) come, they won't be totally out of left field.
Doesn't Hunke get marching orders from Martore? She must be enjoying the moment as well.
ReplyDeleteWebber retirement announced, he leaves Nov 1, 2010.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone know the whereabouts of Bruce Dewar?
ReplyDeleteHe's not in his office at 7950 Jones Branch Drive, that's for sure.
ReplyDeleteBruce was layed off on Monday.
ReplyDeleteFrom: Kupeski, Stacy On Behalf Of Jones, Lee
ReplyDeleteSent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 5:48 PM
To: USAT AD Virginia Staff; USAT AD Field Staff
Subject: Bruce Dewar
Good Afternoon,
In connection with the Advertising reorganization, Bruce Dewar's position, Vice President Advertising Operations and Administration for USA TODAY, has been eliminated effective Friday, August 20. Bruce joined USA TODAY in 1993, after having worked at various Gannett facilities, and over the years contributed to various projects and teams within Advertising and the company. During his tenure, Bruce also brought a positive customer focus to the department.
Join me in thanking Bruce for all of his efforts on behalf of USA TODAY and wishing Bruce well in his future endeavors.
Until future notice Bruce's direct reports will report directly to me. If you have any questions regarding finance, quota or commissions please refer them to David Johnson. Inquiries for production & positioning should be directed to Patrick Burke. All pricing and negotiations should go through Lori Erdos and Tony Hill for their respective territories.
I am aware that this is a very unsettling time for all, but we need to remain focused on our customers and the great brand we represent.
Sincerely,
Lee
So we have a guy like Rudd Davis, who has built a snowboarding website is now running the show with a finance clerk (Susan motiff) at USAT. Excellent job Hunke. You really know how to pick them! Prett soon we will see Tara Connell resurface and Angela Philips will be heading up editorial.
ReplyDeleteYou have got some real winners there. A+ team. Wonder why WSJ is kicking your ass? Look around this building. Lori Erdos has never sold an advertisement without spening more on the entertainment then the revenue the ad yields. Tony Hill is just as lame.
Looks like Dave Hunke is bowing down to Martore the Martyr and thaking it like a man!
Glad to see Lavington was canned. Gracia Martore was after her head for a while. If I were Susan L, I would smack Gannett with a lawsuit as this outcome was predetermined for months. They both hate each other and clearly Mr. Hunke just followed orders.
ReplyDeleteWill these management cuts continue at Gannett's other publications?
ReplyDeleteHunke's only contribution to the paper during his first year in charge has been a willingness to buy the first round.
ReplyDeleteGood question, 10:26 p.m. Westchester and Poughkeepsie sure don't need two publishers. And The Journal News could sure do without a VP news and senior managing editor, and that so-called photo guru.
ReplyDeleteI can't understand how the staff and the paper gets smaller and smaller, yet the top management structure remains the same.
The top dogs should start working weekends and editing copy if they want to earn their keep.
Just for the record:
ReplyDeleteWhile it is true that three management committee members -- Lindquist, Lavington and Webber -- are gone, and Mr. Dewar as well, at least three other names on the original list are not being let go and in fact have continuing roles in the future.
So it appears the "insider" who posted the names (an extremely cruel thing to do), was merely making educated guesses. With extreme damage to those he named who in fact are staying.
But that is the Gannett Blog. Say anything you want. Heck, some of it might be true. Who cares what happens to those falsely named?
For the record, Part Deux: Make that four of the 10 names are staying.
ReplyDeleteSo four falsehoods, four reputations smeared.
12:34 p.m.'s comment underscores why I'm reluctant to follow Gannett's policy: allowing readers to post directly, without an editor previewing comments before they appear publicly.
ReplyDeleteFor the record, Part the Third: In fact, it could end up that six of the names are staying. I only know about four.
ReplyDeleteGood for Jim that yes, he did rather quickly conceal the names, but unfortunately not until they had been posted just long enough on the Blog to make the rounds.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone know if USAT is going to change its press start time in the weeks ahead?
ReplyDeleteFishing with old bait Jm.
ReplyDeleteHuh?
ReplyDeleteFYI, "Fishing with old bait" troll: You're going to look lame when it's confirmed.
ReplyDeleteSo let me get this right: you approve all posts before they end up here and yet you let one through with potentially damaging information that named names and then went back and edited out the names. The damage was already done when you failed to do what you should have done from the beginning.
ReplyDeleteFishing with old bait is a very appropriate comment. That's what Jim did. Whatever happens the person that said that won't look lame regardless of what happens because they called it like it was: fishing with stinky, old bait - because all Jim's sources have whithered on the vine.
8/30 is the date for the 20 minute earlier press start.
ReplyDeleteUSA TODAY is moving up press start times.
ReplyDelete5:14 pm: I'venowheard that, too: 8/30 and 20 minutes early. That sucks for late sports scores, especially. Any idea how much money that saves, anyone?
ReplyDelete4:59 pm: Most of the time, I read comments first and then post them. That's a big change from past practice.
ReplyDeleteNow and then, however, when I'm going to be offline for extended periods, I allow readers to post on their own. That's to keep comment flow going, and is a frequent request from my readers, who dislike waiting to see their posts appear.
It is an uneasy tradeoff: An open freeflowing forum vs. people with a grudge (or simply not realizing the consequences), defaming colleagues by predicting they will be fired.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, since every Gannett manager is routinely called a loser, a drunk, a womanizer, a crook, a disaster, an ass-kisser, a brown nose, etc., maybe this stuff doesn't have much impact.
But there is a difference between a publisher or top executive and the rank and file, even in middle management, who are simply trying to do their jobs. It is hard enough to be laid off. It only makes things harder to be so publicly condemned.
Come then, Jim, make up your mind. Don't just say what suits you. And the one time you turn it off this makes it through? You have lost your integrity - if you had any in the first place.
ReplyDelete6:38 am: This stuff passes through more often than it should. Check out all the removed comments in recent months.
ReplyDeleteWell maybe you should do a better job. Like I said, open or close the door. Take some personal responsibility, something you have a big problem doing.
ReplyDelete4:48 p.m. why don't you just lighten up, or go away? No one enjoys reading your sniveling.
ReplyDeleteTo 5:40:
ReplyDeleteNice Jim. Salt you own blog.
Jim, all that the trolls like 4:48 have done is slapped on some lipstick. They have nothing positive to say about GB but obviously monitor every post. Seriously, if you Gannett Corporate types are so unhappy about Jim's work, leave and start your own blog. Otherwise, for lack of a better example, you're basically a visitor in his house, accept the way he runs it, or don't stop by.
ReplyDeleteThis blog is widely read by senior managers at USAT. Because of the name leaks, there is less trust among all.
ReplyDeleteTo 7:35....here's an idea. You can ALWAYS click on the X. Wow. See how easy this is?
ReplyDelete