Gannett did not include USA Today's print advertising revenue rate decline in its financial statement; instead, it said only that digital ad revenue had jumped 35.1% during the quarter. However, neither Martore nor the statement supplied dollar figures.
Martore also told analysts that USAT's circulation had fallen about 1.7% during the third quarter. That compares with a steeper 13.6% decline during the six months ended March 31.
She revealed these figures during a portion of the call's question-and-answer session, beginning at about minute 38:30 on the recorded replay.
What kind of damage control do you think Robin Pence is doing today. Did anyone listen to that disaster conference call for the earnings? Look at the stock? Who is the Investor relation person that has to clean up this mess???
ReplyDeleteI think the board should be upset. Jim, you need to show a chart of the increase in the stock market over the past year and the decrease in Gannett's stock. That is a bad trend.
Robin is out of her league and this is the little leagues here. She never responds to us. She does not read her emails and she always says "I have to run this by Gracia". Then, it takes about three weeks for a response. What a joke!
ReplyDeleteI swear, if we wanted to put out a press release on a simple client win, Robin has to approve it and then Gracia has to approve it. This is MICRO MANAGEMENT to the extreme!!!!
75 percent of USAT's difficulties are self inflicted.
ReplyDeleteYear over year comparisons of USA Today's circulation don't mean much now that ABC has adopted looser accounting rules. Because of this, I believe the losses of circulation are greater than the 1.7 percent decline reported.
ReplyDeleteMind you, this is a decline in circulation that came in a three month period when the statistics show the economy was improving, however slightly. Hotel room occupancy rates also improved in this period.
So my conclusion is that USA Today is badly listing.
USA Today heads seems to want print to die. And the sooner the better. If leadership were concerned about falling circulation numbers, they'd pay more attention to print content. But they've done the opposite by getting rid of a large portion of their newsroom. Less content, more errors and lack of inspiring material means fewer readers. Yet, as I said, no one in high places seems to care. They seem to think print is dead, even though there is some evidence, particularly outside the U.S. that newspaper may be poised for a comeback. If that were to happen, USAT would be playing catch up again, just as it did when the digital era arrived. Too much has been dismantled. The paper's reputation has suffered. Standards have been lowered. I can't imagine why anyone would aspire to work there now. USAT's gamble will fail. The best route would have been to maintain print quality while developing other platforms. Unfortunately, some people in GCI didn't have the stomach to watch profits decline during this transition, so they essentially throughout the baby with the bath water. That impatience, however, will be good news for other publishers who might want to fill the void USAT has voluntarily left.
ReplyDeleteA decline of 1.7% in the quarter still represents 30,000 copies per day. We're moving in the wrong direction. The WSJ is adding paid digital and print subscribers daily.
ReplyDelete3:59 has put into words what a lot of us have been thinking as we watch them dismantle the tried-and-true newsrooms and jettison loyal employees to chase after the digital mistress: They're going to be mightily screwed if it turns out this was a blip.
ReplyDeleteBlah blah blah -- you're only guessing at USA Today's print circulation. The ABC statements aren't released until Oct. 27 so keep on making those great, gradiose assertions of demise of which you know NOTHING about. And the Wall Street Journal includes their digital copies with their print copies so of course they are higher than USA Today. The ignorance is truly astounding on here.
ReplyDeleteDon't dismiss the WSJ's digital subscriptions. USAT and every other newspaper would kill to boost their circulation via digital.
ReplyDelete6:43. What are you, a corporate shill? USAT has LOST 500,000 readers since the recession. We're continuing to lose readers. Management doesn't seem to care. Its great at a couple of things; talking from both sides of its mouths without saying anything and retaining managers who don't bring any value to the product or content. Look at the masthead. What do these people do to justify their jobs and fat salaries? Not a darn thing, except go to meetings.
ReplyDeleteUSA Today's leadership is overlooking the fact that digital cannot currently pay its own freight. I used to read stories about how that day is coming to newsrooms by 2014 or 2015, but that was before ad rates for digital advertisements were drastically reduced. The best we can say is that currently print is subsidizing digital, and will be subsidizing digital for several more years.
ReplyDeleteThe other problem for GCI in a digital age is that it no longer has an advertising monopoly. If it is all-digital, there are competitors out in this vast space who are prepared to take on the newspaper. To see how fast this happens, remember where the Huffington Post, Gawker, Jezebel, the Daily Beast, the Kaus files, etc. were just five years ago.
Management's current philosophy is one or the other. But why not both. Establish a digital arm separate from the USA Today and local newspaper brands, give it some sexy name, and subject it to the same standards as applied to print. If the consultants are right and the transition will come in five years, there is plenty of time to wind down the print operation. But if the consultants are wrong, we are doing irreparable harm to the brand.
Anon 6:43 has no idea what he/she is talking about. I used Gannett's figures, and did not stretch them as I could. There is no way you can look at this except to conclude the situation at USA Today is much, much worse than we have been told.
ReplyDeleteMy heart and mind tell me that the consultants are wrong. Print has taken a hit, but when the dust clears, print will survive in books, magazines, and yes, newspapers. Just as TV didn't deliver the knockout punch to radio, digital will not do away with print. There is something in humans that still likes the "feel" and format of something they can touch. While digital has given consumers options, folks still go to the mall to try on clothes, still hang pictures on their walls and still will read printed material.
ReplyDeleteThe big problem for Gannett and USAT in particular is that they have done irreparable harm to the brand and will not be equipped to put out a competitive national newspaper when the recession ends.
USAT's reputation in the journalism community - particularly among seasoned editors, visual people and writers - has declined. Good luck convincing real pros to work there after treating your longtime employees like crap over the last three years. Yes, word spreads. USAT's dismantling of its loyal and competent staff -- the very people who built the brand -- is becoming infamous in journalistic circles. That might not stop resumes from pouring in now, but when the economy improves no one with any pride or talent is going to want to work for a company that butchered its employees. I believe job seekers in the future will look for companies that minimized layoffs in rough times and protected their most loyal employees from the harshness of the recession. USAT failed miserably in that regard.
Readers are finally catching on that they aren't getting what they paid for anymore. That's the main reason for circulation losses. The product can't be as good as it once was because USAT doesn't have the horses or the support from the top anymore.
USAT is in serious trouble on almost every front. Its digital mistress will eventually lead to its demise, not because pursuing digital initiatives wasn't the right thing to do, but because of the horrible karma USAT created in going about this transformation. The reorg of the last three years was more of a massacre than an intelligent plan. A short-sighted, small-minded plan to lighten payroll and boost stock prices. Just a quick fix to silent some nervous board members. The damage to this brand was done mostly from the inside. When the economy tested the morals of top USAT bosses, they threw their brothers and sisters overboard, they abandoned principles and caved in to pressure from very greedy people.
In three years, USAT destroyed what it took nearly three decades to build -- credibility with news consumers and professionals within the business.
10:36 is absolutely right. Readers have no brand loyalty.
ReplyDeleteAnd the reason there is no consumer loyalty is because nothing is ever done for the consumer. Any "innovation" is done for the benefit of advertisers. USA TODAY doesn't know who their audience is, just their advertisers.
ReplyDelete4:50 p.m. has it right. Gannett has been screwing the readers for a long time. And that goes for the community papers, too.
ReplyDeleteSmaller staffs, less local news, more fluff less substance. Both in print and online.
They cut coverage and then have the nerve to charge more!
A problem is that Gannett doesn't know how to compete. It never had to for so long, and now that it does it's the proverbial 98-pound weakling.