 |
| Hunke |
"We need to be realistic about the print platform,'' the confidential 14-page report said. "The primary audience of readers is over the age of 40 now, and that will not change."
Although the report was proprietary -- Corporate's top publicist at the time, Tara Connell, would not discuss it with me -- surely Hunke, then head of the Detroit newspapers, should have seen it. (Unless, of course, Corporate likes to form task forces simply to publish reports no one reads or follows.) So, where has Hunke been all this time?
Hard, watchdog news
The report was meant for the more than 80 U.S. community newspapers, so it references the importance of local news. Nonetheless, its first two recommendations on news vs. fluff would apply to USAT in print as it chases older readers:
- Hard news and local news remain our greatest strength and are Boomers' top news priorities; therefore, they should be ours. If editors must cut content, hard news and local news should remain untouched.
- Our watchdog role is perceived as central to our responsibility as a local newspaper. We must find a way to strengthen our watchdog reporting efforts.
'Gotten off track'
Hunke's new pronouncement came yesterday in an interview with Poynter Institute blogger Rick Edmonds, who wrote about USAT's ongoing reorganization:
"Part of the lengthy internal research that led to the changes, Hunke said, was a conclusion that USA Today and other newspapers may have gotten off track trying to woo young audiences or women with a something-for-everyone approach. He has concluded that the print edition should now mainly target an older, general news audience, who favor a traditional presentation."
Arrgh! Was this "internal research" the result of a . . . task force?
Yes, yes, yes. Reading the comments on this blog and the complaints of colleagues, there is no disagreement in the rank and file that hard news and local news is the essential core of newspapers. You really didn't need a task force to say that, but I am happy they did.
ReplyDeleteBut the actions of corporate in the last two years has been the opposite. Newsrooms have been depleted of older staffers who knew their communities. They knew news, and they knew how to get it.
Katy Perry is very pretty and talented, but she is not news. Neither is Lady Gaga. Neither are these soft features.
Take a look at USAT and the community papers today and you see what has been sacrificed over the last two years is hard news. I am sure this happened because consultants told management that content doesn't matter and that the key to the future of newspapers was attracting the younger generation. Advertisers are certainly important, but it is news -- old fashioned hard news -- that drives people to buy newspapers.
Today brought a milestone in my life: For the first time, someone (a public transportation employee) was going to give me a senior discount -- until I said I didn't qualify. And I'm only 53.
ReplyDeleteI remember that when it came out back in early 2008 -- I never saw any result of that task force in the content of the large Gannett paper I worked on. It wasn't never even talked about officially in the newsroom. It was BS then, and it will be BS now for USA Today.
ReplyDeleteJimbo, you are the perfect (print) target reader for USAT.
ReplyDeleteHere's what I don't get. For all his blustery showmanship, Hunke has never articulated the "we must target older readers in print" mantra that was reported in an outside interview posted on Romenesko earlier today. We spent an hour being bombarded at a staff meeting earlier this week with New Age buzzwords about engagement and collaboration and other b.s. (Ideazation, anyone?) But not once did he bring this up at Tuesday's staff meeting. Unless I'm having a senior moment myself, did anyone get this message, or was it lost in the procession of Vice Presential no-nothings dipping into their Valley Girl/Silcon Valley Ipads? Executive editor Susan Weiss, the lead represent of the New Age Content Movement, defintely said nothing about who the paper's target audience is or will be.
Food for thought:
Where was Editor John Hillkirk in all of this? Where was the rest of the "management team?" The lackey squad was definitely in da house, but like Rudd Davis, disengaged.
Regarding the task force memo: How can Hunke, who was running one of Gannett's largest community papers before he rode in derailed USAT with his nonsensical mantras, NOT known of this task force directive? Or did Dickey have the only copy stuck in his golf bag?
I am also 53 and on the outside looking in after Gannett laid me off. If newspapers now want to focus on hard news for people over 40, why does every job ad that I read only require entry-level reporting, design or photography skills? Some papers are advertising for top editors who need to only have a year or two of experience. That's incredible. Thirty years ago I couldn't have gotten an obit-writing job with that little seasoning.
ReplyDeleteAnd publishers wonder why their papers are failing and why educated readers are canceling subscriptions. It's not just inappropriate or trivial subject matter that is out of whack. There is a quality control problem at most papers now that is causing readers to raise an eyebrow or two, wondering if what they are reading was edited or packaged by third graders.
No offense to younger, inexperienced journalists (we were all there at one point), but if newspapers want to beef up serious reporting and presentation, and cut down on some of the absurdities that get into print nowadays, you have to have some experienced hands in the newsroom - editors who can shape the paper and mentor the up and coming journalists. Reporters who really know their beats and understand how to have a rapport with key sources. Photographers with savvy. Headline writers who can draw readers in without having to be intentionally misleading. These and many other newsroom disciplines that take awhile to learn. Trying to put out a paper with interns isn't going to produce a product that appeals to baby boomer subscribers.
You need perspective to put out a comprehensive paper that caters to readers who appreciate watchdog journalism that is credible...credible being the key word. A lot of websites are digging up dirt, but how much of it is legit? In general, there is something less authoritative about reading something online than in print, at least in the mind of boomers. The over abundance of online citizen journalism is part of the problem. But print is also slipping because newsrooms have lost people my age.
I have worked at some of the biggest news organizations in the world, as well as community dailies, yet I can't even get a call back from publishers and editors at weekly papers now. My skills are current and broad based, yet seemingly 90 percent of the job openings at newspapers are entry level so I have no chance.
I know how important it was for me to have senior editors supporting my work when I was young. It felt good to have older, wiser journalists teaching me. I had lots of energy -- still do -- but it was often misguided or unfocused 30 years ago. The senior managers saved my ass more than once and the reader benefited from that.
So if we're moving toward wanting to recapture readers over 40, I would advise publishers, including USA Today's, to hire back some old hands to run crucial departments of the print operations. You have to clean up your newspapers if you want to retain the over-40 demographic that still remembers when papers were thorough, credible and well edited. If you keep putting out lesser newspapers, you will lose a pretty significant segment of the population. It never made sense to me why publishers lost interest in the baby boomer generation - the biggest market of all.
How sadly ironic it is that newspapers now want to appeal to people my age but will not hire journalists with a few gray hairs. I am not looking to get rich at this point, but these short-sighted publishers won't even explore whether they could afford to hire someone with my experience level - someone who might be able to help produce a product more appropriate for the kinds of people who still read newspapers.
Of course it's older people who have the greatest interest in papers. Lots of us knew that. Surveys, anyone? Question is, whether people develop that interest as they age and get more rooted or whether it's just that older readers are the only ones left as younger people fail to take up the habit. Thoughts?
ReplyDelete11:07 I don't have any new insights, but believe that newspapers appeal to people as they become settled in a community, buy a house, and send their kids to school. Then the newspaper becomes an alert system to what is going on with property taxes, local politics, problems in the school, and neighborhood crime. I was different because I am in this profession and I devoured newspapers when I was younger. But I know neighbors who only developed the interest in their 40's. It's sort of like the books on the shelves in some households: newspapers are there to declare they can read and aren't stupid.
ReplyDeleteHere's a measure of how quickly things advance in the digital world beyond USA Today:
ReplyDeleteUSAT announced in December 2006 that it was merging its online and print editorial staffs. That same month, Facebook -- barely two years old -- had 12 million active users.
USAT then spent the next four agonizing years trying to make that merger work amid repeated staff reductions -- only to announce another reorganization this month that appears to splinter its print and digital staffs. And Facebook? It now has more than 500 million active users.
Maybe Mr. Hunke should consult with some of the folks who originally put USAT on track to become the largest paper in the country.
ReplyDeleteQuinn, Neuharth, Pritchard, Oversby and many others whose dreams came true might be willing to help Dave pump some life back into their precious creation.
Think how agonizing it must be for those seasoned pros to watch comparative amateurs dismantle what was once a source of pride for GCI and its minions.
USAT was never perfect, but it was a high quality source of information that adhered to high standards set and enforced by its creators. High quality is no longer a perceptible goal.
Dave should invite USAT founders in for a round table and listen carefully to what they tell him. He should then hold a series of similar discussions with what we used to call "real readers," which in this case could boomers. If he does that, he will arrive at an understanding Neuharth had from the beginning. Just as with hamburgers, cars, homes and anything else people spend money on, quality matters. Neuharth also respected his readers enough to give them information worth its cost.
Dave, obviously more inspired by corporate profits than by journalistic excellence, seems to believe he can sell a Kia for the price of a Cadillac. Neuharth, other USAT pioneers and most readers I know could help Dave understand why that won't work.
Yes, things change rapidly in the digital world. Add to that the stat that every seven seconds, another boomer turns 50 and thnk about how absurd Gannett thinking has been the past few years.
ReplyDeleteThe company nees to ditch the planners, hire some more doers and get back to reporting the news.
Splitting up USAT into print and digital operations is a big mistake. Money and staff is going to be poured into digital because it is the future. The print product will become the poor cousin, deprived of innovation and staff. It will be allowed to atrophe and slip into senility. When you have this sexy new digital thingy, would any new journalist want to work for the old style boring dead tree product which is certain to leave them jobless in their 40's?
ReplyDeleteGee, that's funny. Earlier in the decade, we were told we had to focus more on the younger readers. The stuff that older readers liked were tossed away. Now they're begging the older readers to stay. Typical Gannett flip-flopping.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to believe it took a corporate "think tank" to come up with this!
ReplyDeleteLet me know the next time the Crystal Palace advertises for a thinker.
So the watchdog role's important, huh?
ReplyDeleteHow great a watchdog can the commuity papers be with fewer mongrels on the street and a gang of editors whose knowledge of their circulation area consists of driving routes to and from the office?
1:21. Good point. but all the people you mention Hunke should bring it are editorial people. Hunke is ignoring editorial, or at best, paying lip service to it. Susan Motiff, Rudd Davis, etc etc etc have virtually no experience dealing with editorial content. Heather Frank has no newspaper exeperience. Neither do most of their hires. Even the lightweights at Weekend have more journalism experience.
ReplyDeleteIf I were Hunke, I would look at every person who has voluntary left USAT or been laid off in the last three years. I'd examine the circumstances and reasons surrounding their departures. Talk to people in the newsroom about them. Plenty of folks were still major contributors at the time they were jettisoned for some very unsavory reasons. They possessed vast institutional knowledge and made quality control a priority in their time at USAT. They were good people with solid values that translated into a better product. Whether they were popular or part of the "in crowd" doesn't matter. They did the job. They were reliable. They put the product first.
ReplyDeleteIf Hunke wants to improve print, he should hire back as many of those folks as possible, similar to the way Apple hired back Steve Jobs. It is important for anyone coming into USAT to know the culture. No one knows it better than the seasoned vets who were trashed in this frenzy to merge and transform.
If, however, the print product is on a schedule to self destruct, then don't hire these people back. They care too much for the newspaper and wouldn't come back anyway under those conditions.
Two thoughts on Hunke:
ReplyDelete1. It seems to be his M.O. to grab hold of other peoples ideas and pretend that they are his. This latest focus on older readers revelation was rooted in 2008 research!
2. Can someone PLEASE stop him from ever speaking to the press again. Everytime he does he says something dumb that makes us look bad and hurts us in the marketplace.
10:04 a.m.: Don't forget that USAT is about more than the newsroom. Plenty of other smart and critical contributors are in advertising, circulation, production and other non-editorial departments.
ReplyDelete10:04 So bring back Jack Kelley?
ReplyDelete10:04 Most of these people who were laid off have moved on and put GCI behind them. They are not coming back and after what they went through, I would not blame them. I also don't think there is money to hire these people back. I was very surprised to see that revenues Q3 were flat.
ReplyDeleteJack Kelley - no! Jacki Kelley - Yes!
ReplyDeleteI was let go under the Moon/Paulson regime. Not sure either of them knew me or took the time to review why my supervisor was letting me go. If they had, they might have put the brakes on it. Instead, they took his word. I probably should have sued.
ReplyDeleteI have no use for any of these people and can't believe Hunke is worse than his predecessor. Frankly, with everything going on with layoffs victims desperately looking for work, I don't know how any of these USAT heads sleep at night. Wonder what it feels like to be almost universally hated by your employees, past and present?