In USAT's case, it's unclear how the print product is going to change under this reorganization: With more attention paid to the digital side, but 35 fewer staff positions, will the paper further reduce the space it fills in print? Will it continue to be a four-section paper?
Those aren't inconsequential questions, given this simple fact: USAT in print still provides around 90% of the paper's total advertising revenues. As at many papers, digital provides a relatively small share. Indeed, across Gannett, digital revenue from all business units -- including newspapers -- contributed just $252 million, or 19%, of GCI's overall $1.4 billion in revenue in the second quarter. And that includes a number of 100% digital ventures, such as CareerBuilder and PointRoll.
What will the "new" USAT look like in print -- and when will those changes take effect? Are the traditional print section designations -- News, Money, Life and Sports -- going away? 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.
Let me get this right: you are saying frequency and number of editorial employees contributes to product "heft?" Really, you're sticking with that?
ReplyDeleteSo, how many Finance heads are being cut this round? Not many, I'd bet. Not that you want to see anyone lose their jobs, but something's wrong when there's cuts among those who bring in the money but not those who count it.
ReplyDelete6:17 am: Especially the number of experienced editorial employees.
ReplyDeleteI would be interested in your views on which is the superior news product: USAT, the NYT and/or the WSJ.
Jim - it's not even close. The WSJ is kicking our butts every way possible. While we sit around and rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic, Murdoch is out eating our lunch. And the NYT? They certainly have their share of problems, but editorially they are in another world from USAT.
ReplyDeleteI was reading another webpage this morning and saw the following:
ReplyDeletehttp://bloggingpro.com/jobs/
Hope it helps somebody out!
I worked at USAT in the 90s when papers were robust, mistakes were few and readership was skyrocketing. But even then, we were short-staffed. Oh sure, there were a few too many deputy this and assistant thats, but in terms of the people who provided content and the folks who packaged it, we always felt like we could have used some extra help. We also would have liked to have been paid what other large-circulation publications were paying. However, we did what we did because we believed in the product and the direction in which we were being led. We worked the extra hours in order to put out bonus sections. Some worked without much rest during big events like the Olympics and the Sept. 11 attacks. Sad to know that some of those dedicated people have been pushed out.
ReplyDeleteWhile the paper is physically smaller now, new challenges are being presented to an already stretched staff - a staff that is becoming less experienced by the month. This will undoubtedly lead to a decay of the print product and slow down the quest for digital advancements. As the paper fades, so will profits that could have driven other initiatives. Management is shooting itself in the foot by making the print version of USAT less desirable to readers. Fewer pages, less time to edit and dwindling original content (stories, photos, graphics) will surely lead to further declines in circulation and revenue.
Just as USAT lost money for years while starting up, I think the brand needs to maintain its print product so that it can finance its new start-ups, even if it cuts into the bottom line. Instead of eliminating jobs, I'd be adding jobs -- senior-level jobs -- to bolster the paper so that other ventures can be financed and staffed properly. By bringing in can-do, experienced folks, USAT the paper might be able to regain some of its lost readership (and maybe even some advertisers) by returning the paper to the status it enjoyed in the late 1990s. Yes, that would probably mean losing money for awhile, but you have to spend money to make money. The only place where real money is being made is on the print side, as you pointed out. So no one, especially top management, should be rooting for the demise of print. Print is what pays the bills and buys time for digital folks to innovate. Let's stop pretending that fewer people can put out a quality national paper AND create new digital products and workflows.
These job cuts for the last three years have been too reactionary, too tied to stock prices and not really productive in terms of finding a workable way to publish a newspaper while blazing new trails.
USAT leadership in the 90s had a vision AND a plan. The plan was detailed. It was communicated with the staff, honestly, and in a timely fashion. People felt like they had ownership of the product. Now, those same results are being sought via threats and constant cutbacks. That's not what inspires people or helps improve businesses.
While much has changed in this business, the fundamentals that apply to all well-run industries should not be ignored as USAT managers have been doing for the last few years. That won't get you to where you want to be.
The decimation (through attrition and swapping around) of the design staffs is a strong indicator that the print product is officially an afterthought. It's one thing to say "OK, guys, a little less tinkering." It's quite another to have one person putting out an entire section (or double section) and possibly a preprint when the other is out sick or on vacation.
ReplyDeleteThere's no comparison. Politics aside, the WSJ is clearly and has always been the superior product. Take the level of writing and reporting "voice of authority" alone. Even notice that the WSJ writers clearly have reported the hell out of their stories, yet don't feel the need to quote everyone they spoke to? Yet, in a typical section cover story that jumps for USAT, the reporters feel compelled to quote, oh, maybe 15 to 20 people? And often the quotes are real doozies. Like a professor from some college saying, "The sun will come up tomorrow," after the reporter wrote that the sun will come up tomorrow. Every single fact attributed to some expert or whoever ... How does that make reading an article a pleasure for readers? More like a chore.
ReplyDeleteFace it: Even when USAT had a relatively full staff, the paper was always written in this bland, 'quote as many people as you can within the space to show the reader that you talked to lots of people,' voiceless style that rung any sense of life/fun/flair/humanity from its longer features. Nearly every one (save for the very few writers there -- like Craig Wilson -- skilled enough to get any semblance of style past their tin-eared editors) simply read like a reporter's notebook summary, not a story. (I'm referring mainly to the section cover stories here, btw, because those are the only stories where any decent sense of writing can be conveyed.) Maybe you can justify this Jack Webb-ian "Just the facts, ma'am" approach in USAT for front page and Money cover stories. But Life and Sports? Some of your very best writers should be populating those pages and writing cover stories that sing. Yet, oddly enough, that's where the weakest, blandest writing exists. (Here's a trite lead ... Here's what I gathered in my notebook ... Nevermind standards of writing such as transitions, flow, a unified structure, a singular and appropriate voice, theme, etc.) Actually, the best of the writing is in the Money section. Still, that writing falls far short of WSJ standards of storytelling.
The WSJ actually 'gets it' and always had that a story should be well reported, but it needs to read like a story. As for USAT? Well, when it was a fully staffed product, at least it had a lot of information. But now it can't even "sell" that anymore. In an airport, there's really no choice to make anymore: It's the WSJ every time.
A Gannett Blogger said the number of USAT content rings has been increased to 13, from 11. What are the two new additions? Were any of the 11 original rings changed?
ReplyDeleteAs I understand the new organization, there are no longer managing editors in charge of News, Money, Life and Sports. Does that mean the paper will no longer be organized around those four subjects? If that's the case, what will be the new organizational structure? And who will be responsible for apportioning the daily news hole, and making sure there's enough editorial matter to fill it?
What about departments outside of the newsrooms? Any word about layoffs in HR, marketing, IT, etc.?
ReplyDelete9:46am got it ALL right, every bit of it. Can we put this person in charge please?!
ReplyDeleteThanks 11:13! It would be difficult to put me in charge though -- I was laid off by the USAT managers! But have gone on to much better things at this point.
ReplyDeleteJim:
ReplyDeleteMaybe you already reported on this from E&P. If USA TODAY had the same results, there would be no lay offs. Clearly, something is wrong here, and we're paying the price for a huge lack of leadership. While we can't see the full picture of the decline in advertising revenue at USA TODAY (because it is no longer reported in the financial results), it's clearly far worse than what they're doing at the WSJ.
The ad dollars are there... but the ads aren't showing up in our newspaper. The print product is loaded with wire copy, and our audience has lost faith in us.
Until there is a change in strategy, we'll continue down this shrinking path.
*******************
‘Wall St. Journal’ Print Revenue Shot Up 21% in Fiscal Q1
By: E&P Staff
Published: September 29, 2010
CHICAGO
The Wall Street Journal’s print advertising revenue jumped 21% in the just-completed quarter compared to the year-ago period, Dow Jones CEO Les Hinton said in a memo to staffers Wednesday.
Total print and online revenue for the Journal was “up more than 17% in the fiscal 2011 first quarter when compared with the same period a year before,” Hinton said in the memo, first reported on Poynter’s Romenesko site.
Digital adv revenue was also up, by more than 29%, he added.
Print circulation revenue also increased, spiking 9%, the memo said.
Hinton said the fiscal Q1 results were the fourth consecutive quarter of year-on-year increases in print and digital advertising for the Journal.
“”Our investment in our products continues to pay off,” he wrote. “It is early in the year but signs are pointing in the right direction.”
Hinton also took a shot at The New York Times, noting its parent “forecast total print and online revenue for its calendar third quarter to fall 2 to 3% compared with a year before,” with print down 5%. Times Co. total digital ad revenue is projected to rise 14%, but total circulation revenue is “trending down 5%,’ Hinton added.
And there you have it 3:22PM. The experienced talent bleed accounts for a lot about what went wrong. Gone are people like you who know what good journalism looks. Hope you're having a great life.
ReplyDelete9:46 didn't get it all right. Over-reporting with too many sources in a story? No, it goes the other way in virtually every section of the paper - one or two source stories that essentially blather with no outside context. Check out most of the stories. Reporters are lazy. Traditional newspaper editors with backbones would have shoved that kind of copy right back at their reporters and told them to work harder. Maybe all the editors who are being turned into content providers will show reporters how it should be done. Three sources, minimum.
ReplyDeleteCraig Wilson? Please. His "column" is an ananchronism that is widely mocked on talk radio.
There is no point in raising the debate of wether the USAT is on par with the WSJ or the NYT. The editors at those publications are top flight, seasoned journalists who've played in the big leagues for years. Most have reporting backgrounds. The WSJ? The shear number of connected, beat reporters makes such a discussiojn useless. The editors managing the WSJ's Friday and Saturday feature sections are smart and saavy. They have great ideas or are astute enough to let reporters run with theirs.' When was the last time anyone talked about a USAT editor that way? What USAT editor has vision? What USAT editor has any guts? What USAT editor has decent people-skills?
ReplyDeleteJim; one could complain you are poorly sourced because of your basic questions about USAT going forward. In this case, that just ain't so.Those of us who remain are waiting for the same answers. Editors haven't figured it out yet. Their level of cluelessness was on display during this week's cutbacks. Sports laid off an employee while he was on his honeymoon!
ReplyDeleteGoing forward, there is not transportation plan. Lots of talk about energy and empowerment. No plan! No answers. No transformative memos to rally the troops. King Hunke and his kangaroo court have no clue. The've done an exceptional job protecting their own. So much for change!
8:41 p.m.: The WSJ's fiscal first quarter is Gannett's second quarter, because GCI follows the calendar year. In that quarter, the WSJ's print advertising revenue rose 21%, as E&P notes.
ReplyDeleteIt is true, as you say, that GCI no longer reports USAT's revenue change results in its regulatory documents. However, I've concluded that USAT's second-quarter ad revenue fell significantly from a year before -- far more than the 11% first quarter decline.
”Our investment in our products continues to pay off."
ReplyDeleteThat, friends, says everything about the difference between the two papers.
More questions:
ReplyDeleteOf the 35 newsroom jobs eliminated, how many were deemed management positions?
Of those actually laid off, how many were managers, and how many were reporters? Did every manager get a job in the new organizational structure?
Are Rudd Davis, Heather Frank and Ross Schaufelberger the only ones hired from outside USAT under this reorganization?
I agree with 7:28 a.m. Gannett's inept (I'm being kind) management has pulled so much cash out of its community papers over the years that it borders on the obscene.
ReplyDeleteAnd what was put back in? Nothing that I could see from my perch at Westchester, and I'm sure the same might be said for USA Today.
Meanwhile, the big wigs enjoyed box seats at Yankee Stadium - and don't tell me that these were for drumming up advertising because our News VP and his select cronies were the most frequent users - while the worker bees had their salaries frozen and their cost for benefits increased.
I could go on, but we all know what the reality is at Gannett. The top dogs get richer as the workers get poorer. And that is a recipe for an eventual corporate downfall.
As for the newspaper, in Westchester the top editors gave up on it years ago. And why should they care? No matter what happens, their jobs are secure and their bouses keep rolling in.
11:06, allow me to clarify remarks. (Yes, I'm 11/7 9:46 and 11/7 3:22)
ReplyDelete* I was talking about the section front covers that jump only. But these are the stories that essentially provide USAT's "sell," the only way to demonstrate any edge at all for the consumer's competing dollar over the WSJ in an airport. Comparing USAT's shorter, non-jump features to the WSJ's would be unfair, given the USAT reporter's restrictions there.
* As for Craig, I was referencing his longer section cover features. When he writes those, he clearly commands a greater degree of writing skills than the typical USAT writer. He knows how to tell a story, has terrific eye for detail and has the right "writer's ear" for what makes for a good quote and what doesn't. (These are hardly unique skills among journalists however. Why are they so seldom displayed within the pages of the Nation's Newspaper? I often wondered if it was the editors or the writers. After my experiences there though, I'd have to conclude: Both. Am interested to know if mine is an unfair assessment.) Anyway, many who write a hit-or-miss column tend to shine as great reporter/writers when they just go out and do a feature story. Just look at Gene Weingarten and his longer features for the WashPost. (He didn't win his Pulitzers for his humor column, that's for sure.)
* For the record, I'm not Craig's SO and I barely know the man. He seems like a nice guy though.
* Thanks for the kind words from others here. Yes, I was quietly shown the door by USAT managers along with many, many others in one of the recent mass layoffs. But, I had a plan and, so far, it's been fine. There is life after GCI, folks. There's been some debate on these forums as to whether people like me are unfairly attempting to convince GCI writer/editors to leave. No, I wouldn't advise that. But I do stress the need to have a Plan B ready to go now, before you're forced to come up with one. Is that a horrible thing to encourage? Those whom I worked with (and got laid off with) who trusted GCI and gave their soul and didn't think of 'what if?' are the ones who are struggling the most now to make it.
Good luck to all here, even those who disagree. In the end, we all came into this profession with the same, or similar, ideas.
add Denise Brodey the new ring leader of USA Today Your Life as another outside hire.
ReplyDelete10:51. It starts with the reporting and writing, but it also takes a hands-on editor. I'll respectfully continue to disagree with you on what makes a good cover and how sourced it should be. And I'll also disagree with your premise that covers are the primary showcase to attract readers. A well-reported, well-thought trends strip or exclusive feature story gets far more reach and readership - based on what we see in our top read and emailed stories. These also are the kinds of stories that are picked up by radio shows and TV, and provide the I Saw it in USA Today buzz. Unfortunately, there are few editors capable of identifying these trends. At a top down organization - and its still way too top down now - that spells doom.
ReplyDelete