Davis had been CEO of USAT subsidiary BNQT, a technology start-up he founded in 2004 that publishes news and information about surfing, skateboarding and other such action sports. USAT bought the company in early 2008.
Controversially, Davis will work closely with another USAT executive who also got promoted in the paper's reorganization: former Life section Managing Editor Susan Weiss, now executive editor, content.
The two will have a "collaborative relationship,'' according to a USAT document describing "a new way of doing business that aligns sales efforts with the content we produce." This suggests a weakening of the traditional Chinese Wall between the newsroom and business side, one designed to keep a paper's news and editorial content from being unduly influenced by its commercial interests. For example, the wall helps make sure advertisers aren't given special, favorable treatment over non-advertisers.
How will Davis mitigate this risk?
That's one of many questions I'm planning to ask him in the days ahead. I'd like your input, too. What would you like to know about Davis' past, his current role within USAT, and what the paper hopes to do in the future?
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: yesterday's front page, Newseum]
I could care less about the age of Rudd Davis. What I care about is that he has no experience other than selling an unprofitable company to Gannett.
ReplyDeleteJim, please spell Susan Weiss' name right. Thank you.
ReplyDelete"How will Davis mitigate this risk?"
ReplyDeleteRisk? From which perspective would it be a risk? Only from a journalist's one. Which he is not.
As far as mitigating it goes, given his partner here in the collaboration, he won't need to worry too much about that.
D'oh! Thank you, @9:02 a.m.; I've fixed that.
ReplyDeleteThe problem I see with monetizing USAT's content is that there is not much of it today. Look at the paper and you will see a large percentage is wire copy. The days of a staff-written paper are gone. USAT was a good brand that was once worth something, but staff cuts and ineffective management have left it bereft.
ReplyDeleteAs Bob Dylan said, never trust anyone over 30.
ReplyDeleteThis is the joke: John Hillkirk, Susan Weiss and David Colton, who apparently are now the top three people making decisions about USAT content, are at least in their early 50s and have spent nearly half their lives--not half their careers, but half their lives--at USAT. Doesn't that make sense? The company is declining, so let's promote the people who have helped lead to its downfall. Why is USAT so afraid to bring in fresh blood with a track record of success in journalism? Is it because the people who've been at the top would feel threatened?
ReplyDeleteHow many entries on this blog have urged a shakeup at USAT? Well, it may be a joke, but the critics got their wishes fulfilled. Yes, it looks a little too top-heavy and too much guided by USAT veterans, but talk to people outside USAT and you will find that no one wants to work here because of the dismal reputation this place has (justly) earned. Note this is in spite of the dismal economy and also note Politico, Newsweek and other national operations have applicants lining up in the corridors.
ReplyDeleteAt what age is an executive appointment acceptable? He's a 30-year-old man with a business background that's more successful than you, Jim, and probably the majority of your readers, a large portion of whom presumably are collecting unemployment or a $30,000-per-year Gannett paycheck. For someone who was so obviously bothered by anti-gay slurs on your blog, it's astounding how blatant your ageism is. I'm incredibly disappointed in the angle you've taken on the so-called Davis story.
ReplyDeleteOne need only read your own blog archives to see how horrendously a company managed by (age-appropriate?) executives in their 40's, 50's and 60's has fared. I don't know why having a 30-year-old (Oooh! Scary!) in an executive role is so frightening.
More than anyone, 1:10 p.m., you are reading something into my post that is not there. I've noted his age, and said that it puts him within a generation of younger male readers that advertisers want to reach.
ReplyDeleteI've also noted that fully half his life has been spent in the post-Internet era.
Where's the ageism in that?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI beg to differ with you, Jim. It is quite easy to read much into what you say and don't say in your posts. Anything you say can pretty much be gelled down into your hatred for anything Gannett or USA TODAY and your desire to gain hits to further your own interests.
ReplyDeleteYou have deleted posts I made previously that quationed your intentions so I also expect you to delete this one.
Who really cares, anywhay?
Age has nothing to do with it. When Davis was even younger, he launched a company involving extreme sports that GCI bought. So how many companies have been created by those who bitch about this appointment on the grounds he's inexperienced. In a similar vein, there's a complaint above that Hillkirk, Susan Weiss and David Colton are in their 50's and so too old to understand the technology.
ReplyDeleteWhat alarms me about these plans has nothing to do with age, but with the plans to lower the barriers between advertising and news. As it was put to us, the restructuring will “usher in a new way of doing business that aligns sales efforts with the content we produce.” Since management has already broken down that wall, God know what additional changes are now in store for us.
8/28/2010 11:08 AM Enough chatter about the ages of the newsroom. Our problem has been and is now and will continue to be our ineffective lazy and out of touch advertising department which remains untouched and continues to stagger along with or without a "transformation" (what an assinine term that is -- who is that marketing idiot who dreamed that up?)
ReplyDeleteSo what are the ages of Lori Erdos, Tony Hill and Lee Jones in advertising? What are they doing about the "transformation" anyway? It is not the newsroom that got us into this mess. It is the advertising department.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteYou're fooling yourself if you think you're not drawing undue attention to his age by making it a headline (and of course guessing that he was 29 instead of 30 based on his grad date, since someone in their 20's is an attention-getter), writing about it to the point where he had to e-mail you to clarify his age, and post a picture (presumably of him?) from his college years.
ReplyDeleteGannett, not Jim, has made age an issue. Look at the age of the majority of people who were bought (forced) out or laid off. Think there might still be some bad feelings stirring about how that went down? Look how worse things have become, from a content standpoint, since the purging began nearly three years ago.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who knows anything about Gannett knows this isn't a company with a lot of respect for older workers. It's been this way for at least three decades. Sure, USA TODAY might promote a few caretakers who are in their 50s, but for the most part, this company has been getting much younger in the last couple of years. And where is the proof that it's working? Can anyone say that basic content (pictures, graphics, stories, etc.) are better now than they were 5 years ago? I am not talking about how flashy things are. That's just a function of improve technologies. I am talking about the journalistic content. The quality and relevance. The uniqueness.
I have always found that newspapers are best served by diversity -- diversity of age, sex, race, etc. But it is clear to most people that Gannett/USAT is moving away from senior managers, editors and reporters. When it comes to ageism, USAT has a growing problem and it's not in failing to give young people a chance.
In the eyes of corporate, older employees are paid too much. Never mind that they are the gatekeepers, the people who save the company from libel suits and who catch embarrassing errors. The people who mentor green reporters and unseasoned designers. The folks who instill the values of what it means to be a journalist.
I relied on my elders when starting out. But all I see now is animosity between generations. Sadly, Gannett is partly to blame for that. Gannett has fostered the hate. I suspect bad parenting also has something to do with this new wave of entitlement.
Experience should mean something, but I am pretty sure USAT is in its final days of embracing anyone over 50. Weiss, Colton and whoever else with a few gray hairs will be gone soon enough as the transition to a younger staff is probably a couple years away. When it finally happens, and most people over 50 are booted, we will see if the next generation can bring the success to the brand that some of their predecessors did.
Content, content, content. That's what it's all about. That's where usat is failing miserably in the last couple of years. Many of the people who drove and/or produced that daily content are long gone, unfortunately. There is a new pace, a new, slower rhythm and a lack of resources that has made the brand inconsistent. Whereas you could once pick up the paper and truly be wowed on most days, that wow frequency is down to about once every two or three weeks. The thinning paper has become a terrible advertisement for the website, and the website is so filled with mistakes that I cringe on most days.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI think the animosity you're seeing is frustration from younger employees that they're being expected to work to the point of burnout for a company led, yes, by people in their 40's, 50's and 60's who lack even the most basic understanding of the changing media landscape.
ReplyDeleteSay you're a tech-savvy 20-something copy editor at a Gannett newspaper and you have an idea you think would help sell papers or drive page views or increase revenue. You have two choices: You can go to your exec ed, who is likely in his 40's or 50's, who will immediately discount your idea because it doesn't fit in with Corporate's ADD flavor-of-the-month initiative, or obey the chain of command and tell your direct supervisor, who is likely so fearful of losing his job that he won't give your idea a second thought.
The tension you're sensing, Anon@10:13, is fear that those of us in our 20's and 30's who genuinely do care about the company won't be able to steer it in any meaningful direction because we're not in any position of power.
Do I think 30-year-old Rudd is USAT's savior? Who knows? But this is a guy who parlayed his dot-com startup into a GCI purchase into a top-level management position at one of the nation's largest media companies. He's obviously got something going for him. Instead of trying to embarrass him by posting a photo of him -- GASP! -- being a college kid, I wish him well and hope he's able to exact meaningful change.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteCome on Jim, why allow 10:35's post? What is the point? It was silly, immature and irrelevant. You are all three of those for allowing it to be posted.
ReplyDelete4:28 pm: Agreed. I've now removed it.
ReplyDeleteEveryone can take a chill pill and relax. Your first problem is in thinking that Gannett is a meritocracy, in which skill, talent and experience counts for anything.
ReplyDeleteI'm in my low 30s and have been working for Gannett longer than this goober has. I've supervised staff. I've offered up many ideas for new, revenue-boosting products. Not a one has even been ACKNOWLEDGED, let alone implemented. The only ideas that matter at my site are the ones from the glass offices. There is no innovation except that which originates with the senior editors, the department heads and the VPs.
By the sound of it, this guy got out of college, had some cash (parents? trust fund?), started a company, did the smart thing and sold it to a big-pocketed company, and apparently has been kissing ass ever since.
But it doesn't matter if he'll do well or not because Gannett is totally fucked already. There just is no saving this company.