"Would USAT still have as many layoffs if it didn't have to finance new initiatives?"
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.
I'm going to keep asking another key question: As it has been outlined publicly, how will this restructuring/reorganization/transformation lead to more advertising revenue?
ReplyDelete1. There has been plenty of "discussions" within the GMC around Hunke's survivability. My boss is very close to all of this.
ReplyDelete2. Even worse, Ms. Martore is nervous about the leadership of Pointroll defecting after they are paid out. Apparently, she has not made any progress on any negotiation.
3. Yahoo Partnership is a clear failure so far. Mr. Dickey has made some big promises and now they are back peddling as we are in the throws of the budget season.
4. Mr. Dubow and Ms. Martore are looking to break up the role of the Chief Digital Officer into two parts. They have clearly not found anyone to replace Mr. Saradakis, so this is their next best move. Apparently, Ms. Martore is threatened by anyone who might be the successor to Mr. Dubow when he retires in 2011. The Board has demanded that they find Mr. Dubow's successor in the CDO.
5. USAT is in fact going to have some big challenges. Revenues are down and costs cannot be cut fast enough. All the new people Mr. Hunke brought into USAT have not worked out. Worse off, as the market gets better, USAT is seeing major defections in the newsroom
6. Gannett Local, is another miserable failure according to my boss. Although Mr. Robertson is very nice, Ms. Martore is finally realizing that he is not qualified to build a business.
7. Gannett;s new investment in Ongo, is their way of back peddling into a pay wall strategy as their current pay wall experiment is not working.
8. CareerBuilder is having a crappy quarter and will screw up Digital's numbers once again this quarter.
9. Notice the change in Martore's title on the Gannett corporate website "President, Chief Operating Officer, and Chief Financial Officer" Looks like they are not hiring a CFO either.
10. Robin Pence is upset that she has not been able to change the image and brand of Gannett, even though she has spent over $1 million on a very expensive consulting firm. The website is still the same.
11. Content One is dead (for now).
Regarding No. 9: That may have been a change there, but Corporate has been identifying Martore with the title of President, COO and CFO since at least this March 18 press release -- two weeks after she was described as holding the CFO responsibilities only until a permanent hire was made.
ReplyDeleteNonetheless, it's entirely possible that Corporate has dropped the CFO search. And that would be most unfortunate; it's nearly inconceivable that one person could adequately carry out all those duties.
I gotta stop reading this stuff. I feel like Tweak on South Park. Word.
ReplyDeleteMark my words that Martore is going to be a huge mistake. She is unbelievably territorial and jealously guards her turf against anyone she regards as a possible rival. Look how she's consolidated these jobs as Dubow has weakened. The only check on her will be the board of directors, and we know how aggressive that group has been.
ReplyDeleteTo answer Jim's question about whether some layoffs are needed to finance the reorganiztion: of course they are.
ReplyDeleteThe reorganization is going to be incredibly disruptive creating 11 silos in the newsroom, each headed by their own top managers. This replaces the current four silos, which as we all know is much too top heavy.
This means editors will increase in numbers, and consquently reporters will decrease. So it looks to me as if the layoffs will come disproportionately from the reporting ranks. Reporters are bolting USAT because they see this clearly, too, and read the handwriting on the wall.
Of course, USAT managers aren't going to do anything about those protected reporters who currently gather a paycheck for doing substandard work or virtually nothing. So the work is about to be shoveled on the very few.
There's another incentive for reporters to leave because the new structure is a command structure where reporters will do what editors want, and only that. What little initiative reporters now have to follow their instincts will be gone.
Finally, the reorganization brings production functions into the newsroom and will require additional staffers (editors) to handle these chores. The reorganization puts the Web ahead of the print product, but still requires the production of the print product and retention of those who put it together.
We all need to pay more attention to the dissolving of the Yahoo partnership. It means little to Yahoo, but much to us because corporate was budgeting big bucks on its success. We all know what happens in this company when budget targets aren't met.
ReplyDeleteThe revenue/advertising question is key. The corporate approach to this reminds me of the "Field of Dreams" where if we build it, they will come.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure they will. We've been terribly slow jumping on this bandwagon and there are already several organizations out there doing a fantastic job attracting 18-35 year old readers. Take Gawker or Jezebel as examples. Will another newspaper Web site also work, especially if it is written in the boring old way of newspapers?
The other difficulty facing GCI is Web ad rates continue to decline. This means less revenue or more ads. More ads turn off readers. Again, see Gawker, Jezebel, etc. to see how this is done.
The third factor is that advertisers can address readers directly via the Internet, and don't really need the intermediaries that they did when newspapers held a monopoly on news distribution.
Bottom line: I am not sure the revenues are there for a national operation. Maybe for community papers, but USAT is a shot in the dark.
If ContentOne is dead, as My Boss Says, what happens to Tara and the central staff? This is the same as what is happening with USAT. They mount these extraordinary campaigns with a great splash, ignoring those who say the changes can't possibly work. Then they don't work, the initiatives are forgotten, and yet the shell of the changes continue on as a sinecure. And they wonder why they are losing money.
ReplyDeleteMaybe we could print on pink paper this month and jump on the breast cancer bandwagon. Throw in a Page 3 girl and we'd be set.
ReplyDeleteTHAT would be a new image and brand for Gannett. The Nation's Boobpaper. Oh shit, USAT has that locked in already.
Jim:
ReplyDeleteHas My Boss been wrong on anything? This guy is obviously very wired. A profile would reveal a person who just doesn't like the company very much due to his willingness to spew company secrets on Gannettblog. It must drive top brass nuts.
I enjoy his posts.
Regarding No. 11: Well there's a shock. Another hugely hyped initiative down the drain.
ReplyDeleteJim:
ReplyDeleteSo do you have any way of knowing if this is the same person who wrote before (repeatedly) as "my boss." Always seemed brief and to the point, not one to attack individuals and pretty well edited.
But here he/she has a very different tone, is long-winded, sounds less authoritative (more like one trying to bolster authority) and speaks of being, for instance, in "the throws of the budget season," and other rough writing. Sounded a little like an imitation to me.
This is a poster that has enjoyed a lot of credibility here. I could see someone attempting a copycat post.
1:46 a.m.: Indeed, I believe this is the same person. They are signing their comments from the same Google/Blogger account as in past posts; that's not an account that anyone can "copycat.''
ReplyDeleteAlso, My Boss has on several occasions posted comments this long. As for the rough writing, please bear in mind that many, many posters here are not professional writers. Although many of my readers work in editorial, many others are in circulation, production, human resources and other departments.
5:51 p.m.: My Boss hasn't always been right. In some of those cases, though, he/she may have faithfully reported things overheard or told to them, but from people who were themselves misinformed. That's one of the minefields in reporting confidential information.
ReplyDeleteSome of us even work in *gasp* advertising and prepress. ;)
ReplyDeleteUNCLEAN! UNCLEAN!
thank you 5:37. This blog seems to always forget the rest of the company. Not everyone is a USAT editorial employee.
ReplyDeleteHere's what will happen. I give it no more than six months (and no... i don't have proof, it's just obvious)
ReplyDeleteUSAT will fail.
Martore will fall.
JP Morgan will force a shot gun mariage (unfortunatley with Murdoch most probably)
The Crystal Palace will be put on the block.
What's left of USAT wil be rolled into whatever national news outlet we get hooked up with.
Digital will be history.
The USCP will be the only recognizable aspect of Gannett left standing when all is said and done.
So glad I got out of this trainwreck. What a mess.
ReplyDelete8:15
ReplyDeleteThe Crystal Palace ought to be on the block. They would save ooodles of money by moving the corporate office to a more central mid west location which costs less to operate.
8:15 AM, you forgot about broadcast. TV group is doing well, from what I've heard.
ReplyDeleteJim:
ReplyDeleteWould the company resort to sharing information that was wrong in order to find out who My Boss is?
The poster must breed a great deal of mistrust within the ranks.
The posting would likely be a fireable offense.
Martore is right. I don't think these guys could organize a three-car funeral. How can a simple idea like reorganizing USA Today be so difficult? All you have to do is reverse the current process and put the Web first and the print product second. Why all the planning? Just order it done.
ReplyDeleteBroadcast is so strong right now that the networks are freeing their commercial time, so affiliates in markets with hot, contested elections can sell more time to the campaigns. Demand for political ads is SUPER STRONG, best I've personally seen in 17 years on the job.
ReplyDelete11:11- It seems obvious doesn't it? Logical. Even good business. But this is Gannett. Which is why it will take Jamie Dimon to come in; chop off some heads and get his ROI from the shares he just bought. Anyone wonder why one of the most sensible bankers in the country bought a bigger chunk of the titanic? You just read it.
ReplyDelete8:15- You're right. I did forget about broadcast. I apologize, as i'm the one complaining about this blog never seeming to care about anyone but editorial.
Doesn't that Murdoch guy own some stations or something?
The masthead of USA Today today has some interesting...changes.
ReplyDeleteThere's rumor floating around that the transformation plan - other than the layoffs - is being scrapped and management will be forced to start from square 1. Not enough changes. Still too many highly compensated senior editors. Hunke under pressure from Martore to slice deeper and bigger, especially at the top. God, will someone exhibit some leadership here and figure out something soon?
ReplyDeleteI thought Tara Connell with her Content One hoohah was going to put Kate Marymont out to pasture. But now it looks like Marymont might come out ahead in the end.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately none of the above means anything positive for newsrooms. The Bozos at the top of the Gannett dung heap are only interested in wringing more profits (mostly into their own pockets) and couldn't care less about quality journalism.
I noticed on the USAT intranet home page that October is National Depression Awareness Month. Sounds about right.....
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteJP Morgan's stake in the company is a passive investment, meaning it's not an activist stakeholder and is not looking to make any changes to the management. This is in contrast, for example, to what Carl Ichan has done with Yahoo and is likely trying to do with Motorola. Another example is Ron Burkle, who just lost a battle in his effort to influence or take over Barnes & Noble, another company that hasn't navigated the changing media business especially well. An obvious question is why haven't these or other corporate raiders taken on Gannett? It is most likely that, with a market cap of $3 billion, there's no upside. The company is too expensive with too little return potential in a business that has too much competition. Also, it's expenses are already cut into the bone, which further limits upside potential. In any event, is a takeover really what you'd want? While some folks at GCI could gain from improved business practices, huge swaths of people would be cut loose as any private buyer would examine how to cut up the pieces and try to sell them off. Anyone want to work for Dean Singleton? While some Gannett Blog posters sneer at the GCI's efforts to refinance its debt, and many suffer from its efforts to keep its balance sheet in the black, the alternative is default, threat of bankruptcy and/or takeover by vulture investors as was the San Diego Union Tribune and the Philadelphia Inquirer. One could argue that Gannett's effort to stay in the black and repay stockholders has already irreparably damages its properties, but that's another argument.
ReplyDelete1:25 pm- Insightful, and well said. Except your theory on "being cut to the bone". while this is true of the blood sucking that has gone on throughout the company we still have a HUGE FAT ASS called headquarters. Would anyone like to take an educated guess on how much savings would occur if we were to shut down the crystal palace and sell it off? Not to mention how much could be saved by eliminating the highly paid dead weight that is the executive suite.
ReplyDeleteYou ask if a takeover is what i want? As a shareholder. Yes. As a USCP employee. It doesn't matter. Broadcast and The local dailies are still somewhat profitable. We've already been downsized to point where we're loosing revenue. We won't get cut anymore. IF there is a takeover we'd be the business that they would take over Gannett for.
So much of this blog comes from Mclean. So let me tell you all something. Out in the field, all accross the country. The feeling is the same. We don't need you. In fact. We'd be better off without you. You're nothing but an expensive burden to us.
And to a potential buyer you're a very attractive cost savings.
7:50
ReplyDeleteAs someone who spent years in Gannettland before joining USAT, I understand your frustration. You are right about the overhead - it is considerable. There are still scores of overpaid managers in many departments who do nothing and would not be missed. There still will be post transformation - people are just amazed at this latest ouster of employees, which inexplicably left many highly compensated people with jobs. As far as the building, that's a problem in a depressed commercial real estate market. Management would have been much smarter staying closer to DC and renting property instead of building a palace that was close to the homes and weekend country estates of former executives here. Cost cutting at the building - which was designed by a top flight architect who failed to include actual closets - now includes shutting down parts of the underground parking lots and pulling the plug on electrically powered designer art. They're also closing the DC bureau - which they had to pay $500,000 a year in rent for because the new office was too far away from government agencies. The company can't sell headquarters for decent coin right now. It tried selling an adjacent lot a while back, but that fell through, too.
Hang in there.
Regarding the D.C. office, I believe the plan is to relocate to a smaller office -- not to pull out entirely. But that may now have changed.
ReplyDelete@10/06/2010 7:50 AM
ReplyDeletehey dumb ass who are you going to sell it to? even if you shut it down and move there is still expense of moving all those people and and servers and other equipment.
If you haven't noticed there are plenty of empty buildings around because no one is buying property anymore.
@11:07
ReplyDeleteYou must be one of the brain trusts we have occupying the building now.
In the context of a merger (re: takeover)the people don't matter. They would be laid off. The equipment would be auctioned. The building would be shuttered, and left vacant until the market rebounds enough to warrant a good price. If Gannett was taken over..... Quite simply it would be gutted.
But typical of Gannett myopia. You give me a response filled with vitriol, arrogance and self absorbed delusion.