 |
| Dubow, Martore and Dickey |
The board of directors awarded cash bonuses to top executives last year, partly for cutting costs through layoffs and other job reductions. Assuming they get the same bonuses this year, here's what three top executives would earn for every one of the approximately 240 jobs reportedly cut over the past week.
$6,173
per job
CEO Craig Dubow
(2009 bonus: $1.5 million)
$3,909
per job
COO Gracia Martore
(Bonus: $950,000)
$1,687
per job
Newspaper division chief Bob Dickey
(Bonus: $410,000)
Related: 2009 pay to five highest-compensated executives
This certainly puts things in perspective. Thanks Jim.
ReplyDeleteThe ultimate slap in the face to all those laid off......and totally to be expected. To benefit off the suffering of others is practically sub-human. But, there they stand.
ReplyDeleteI'd laugh if it wasn't so sadly and typically Gannett.
ReplyDeleteHow anyone can have the nerve to take a bonus in these times is beyond me. I guess that lacking a conscience helps.
OUCH.
ReplyDeleteGreat post, Jim. Your figures carry even more weight when you figure that many of the people laid off made only $50,000 a year or less (including benefits). That would mean more than 25 percent of the layoff savings is being eaten up by executive bonuses. And these are bonuses to people making more than $1 million a year. The economy doesn't hurt them in near the same way it does the people being laid off.
ReplyDeleteThe next time corporate says we're all suffering and that the cuts are being made out of necessity and not greed, everyone should think about this.
What's more ... if I'm correct ... these figures only look at executive bonuses. They don't consider stock options, which are an unneeded expense to the company and could be cut. Dubow made more than $4 million last year, right? What do you do with $4 million a year? Buy the foreclosed houses of the people you lay off? Eat $200 meals every night? Fly to London for weekend vacations? It's obscene, especially since the people making these wages are failures in every measurable sense.
The newspaper business is tough, you say. True. But they have not been innovative enough to find a fix. The fact that a job is hard, doesn't mean you get a pass when you don't do it successfully.
In this economy -- and as poorly as Gannett has been performing for years -- I can't see a justification for a company executive making anything beyond his/her base pay.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with anyone trying to make money....none at all. But, there are times when in the name of leadership and decency, an exec needs to embrace some level of shared sacrifice. Even if it's just for the PR.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteNot to be crude, but... AAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteSad, very sad. In the light of all this, if top execs are taking 10% cut in pay, why can't that go to keeping jobs instead of bonuses that the top execs don't need anyway?
ReplyDeleteHere's the bottom line: if your company is doing poorly even where you need to lay off employees, then how can the same company's execs even earn a bonus? Has the world just totally flipped upside down?
ReplyDeleteThis didn't happen overnight. I think the media people were so wrapped up trying to appeal to the "younger" generation that they dropped the ball on reporting real news----like executive bonuses being out of whack with what real people earn, the predicted mortgage/housing crisis, the impact of the baby boomers on social and business systems, etc.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, they're doing the same thing with the wikileaks, but I guess we'll have to wait and see on that one.
Sickening. No other word to describe it.
ReplyDeleteJim: Thanks for sharing this with us.
ReplyDeleteMartore, Dubow and Dickey: How proud you must be of your "accomplishments." Don't know how you can walk the Crystal Palace halls with your shameless heads held high.
Barf
ReplyDeleteIf these are the type of people who run newspapers, who rise to the top of newspaper chains, than the industry deserves to die. Obviously, cream doesn't rise in this field. They are horrible human beings.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI still do not have a job. I'm 56 and it hard to compete against 30 year old MBA's in a merket where there is 13% unemployment.
ReplyDeleteWow! What a moral sinker!
ReplyDeletePeople that are still working there can't feel too proudly about walking into the building with their heads held high, especially when some are being made to take pay cuts along with more furloughs, then, on top of that, a large cut of their pay checks will have to go into paying their NEW healthcare rate! What an explosive situation they got going on there! I wouldn't wish it on anyone!
Just think - Google is giving all of their employees a 10% raise!
2 Big companies. One doing great, the other - not so great!
Reminds me of "A Tale of Two Cities" by Charles Dickens
Chapter 1.
IT WAS the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way- in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.
Following is an edited version of a comment posted at 5:32 p.m.:
ReplyDeleteJim, this is a post that says it ALL. Three years ago, when this once-great company began laying off its reporters/slaves, the company was on the verge of bankruptcy and the stock wavering at $2. The moves were necessary for the company to survive. Period. Now, flash forward to the present. The layoffs have nothing to do with survival -- and EVERYTHING with making sure these greedy bastard executives get their bonuses and ridiculously overpaid salaries. Think about it for a moment: what have these people done to merit this kind of obscene money? Nothing. Personally, I hope [XXXXX] (Dubow) and [XXXXX] (Martore) [XXXXX] can understand how their unmitigated greed has ruined the lives of thousands of employees. I have been following financial markets for years and never seen a company hold on to and pay obscene salaries to executives who have helped cut the company's stock price down 80 per cent in their Reign of Terror. This is so pathetic. Really, it brings me to the verge of tears thinking how [XXXXX] and [XXXXX] have enriched themselves at the hands of the incredibly hard-working slaves.
Correction from Anon 11/11/2010 7:14 PM
ReplyDelete"What a MORALE sinker"
It's not the best of times or worst of times, it's the end of the Times and the Post and the Journal and the Herald and the ...
ReplyDeleteThis is simply an example of modern American corporate capitalism - nothing more, nothing less. How many other big business executives are swimming in it while the rank and file suffer. And this is why we MUST have some type of regulation to stop it. I don't know. Perhaps an IRS rule noting that the top managers of each company must reduce their yearly salaries collectively by the amount equivalent to the salaries of those laid off in any given year. That includes American job losses by moving facilities overseas. SOMETHINGS gotta happen. Any ideas?
ReplyDeleteI'm going to say something that won't be popular, life is not fair. This is the society we've built, of haves and the have nots where the wealthy exist at the expense of those who aren't.
ReplyDeleteAt Gannett there are many others besides Dubow and Martore receiving bonuses. Most have earned these payouts, some not but that's a minority. Did Dubow earn his bonus after being absent for several months, of course not. Did Martore earn hers, that's debatable. She's smart and works like a dog. Could Gannett have survived without the cuts and layoffs? No. Did the cuts go too far? Yes. Without bonuses that giant sucking sound you hear will be the disapperance of talent needed to see this company through uncertain times. Call me a troll or just someone pragmatic enough to know there are two sides to every story and that nothing is ever simple.
8:09 -- Everybody hates tax increases, but I think the income tax rate for people making more than $2 million per year should be extraordinary. I mean something like 90%.
ReplyDeleteI know a lot of people don't see that as fair because they think people should be able to make as much as they like. I see it as perfectly fair because everyone would be taxed exactly the same on that first $2 million, and a person could choose not to pay the 90% tax rate by donating everything beyond that $2 million to charity. Or they could simply cap their pay at $2 million.
The fact is, anyone making $1 million or more a year could live a lifestyle beyond what most Americans could ever dream of. Why would they need more? What is unfair is the fact that there are people in this country who are literally starving. America has the highest poverty rate -- including the highest child poverty rate -- of any major industrialized nation. Meanwhile we have individuals making $10 million, $20 million, even $50 million per year. This is disgusting and it should stop.
I also like your idea about executives being forced to reduce their salaries in accord with layoffs and pay reductions from their workforce. I think the law should first prevent them from taking bonuses and stock options in a year where they reduce staffing. In most cases, the extras are worth far more than the actual salaries.
9:25 p.m. writes: "Could Gannett have survived without the cuts and layoffs? No."
ReplyDeleteSurvived what?
I'd rephrase the question this way: "Could Gannett have survived the huge debt burden it took on under Dubow and Martore?"
The answer may still be no. But why should they be rewarded for fixing a problem they created in the first place?
Jim, exactly. Any Gannett employee should ask themselves, "Is this what I'm working for? Are they what I'm working for?"
ReplyDeleteTake a stand! Life is short. Fight the good fight. Don't accept your inevitable fate under this incompetent team of buffoons.
Let's throw these bums out!!!
ReplyDeleteActually, for a self-confessed troll, 9:25 presented a well-reasoned position and deserves respect and appreciation for that, regardless of whether you agree. Jim's rebuttal, as always, is on target.
ReplyDeleteAs for 9:29: Ummm, sorry. But your vision is naive at best and anti-American at worst. As much as the idea disturbs you, we do live in a capitalist society where people are rewarded financially for doing great work. You seem to support a person being "capped" at making $2 million. Why $2 million? There are many people who earn that much and more because -- unlike GCI "leaders" -- they do it the right way: With integrity and courage and vision. If they've scored a big paycheck while enriching the economy/society in the process, then what's the issue?
Very few -- I'm quite comfortable making this broad statement -- on this entire blog would begrudge Dubow, Martore et al their millions if they actually were driving the company toward long-term, sustained growth. And doing so while not costing so many thousands at this point their livelihoods, and not turning every property they oversee into a god-awful, unsellable eyesore of mediocrity.
9:29, you can be honorable and decent at $2 million plus or $200 million plus. Or you can be morally bankrupt at those prices or less. Putting a ceiling on the rewards of ambition won't provide the "fix" needed at GCI. Providing some semblance -- ANY semblance at this point -- of oversight/governance on the part of the GCI board would.
At Gannett there are many others besides Dubow and Martore receiving bonuses. Most have earned these payouts...
ReplyDeleteHow does anyone "earn" a bonus in this climate? People are losing their jobs and their homes and the insurance and everything else, yet there are still jobs where you can "earn" a bonus? WTF? Use that bonus money to keep others employed, to make the product better. Our products continue to erode, yet we still give some the opportunity to "earn" a bonus?
12:43 -- I used $2 million as a throwaway figure. I would be perfectly content making it $1 million, perhaps even $500,000, as that's plenty of money for any one person to make in a given year. I suspect most of the people reading this blog would work about 10 years to make that much. But, in fairness to the ultra-rich, I decided to go extremely high.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the post was naive, in that it will never happen. Why? Because our politicians are bought and sold, and most are multimillionaires themselves. Was it anti-American? Only if you believe American values call for building an incredibly wealthy and small aristocracy while hundreds of thousands of people live on the verge of starvation. That's not the America I was brought up to believe in, but it is the one we live in now. So, I guess you could call me anti-American. I do believe our capitalist-socialist tilt has gone way too far in favor of capitalism. And, yes folks, we have had socialism in this country for decades, and the nation has been better for it.
Certainly, there are honorable wealthy people, many of whom donate vast amounts to charity. The system I mentioned would do very little to affect the way those people live. You could make $50 million a year and donate $48 million to various causes and be completely unaffected by a high income tax. I'm not saying eliminate write offs, etc. You would only get hit hard if you decided to simply pocket the cash. And again, I would tax everyone equally on everything they made up to whatever cutoff was decided upon. It would be completely fair.
As for the people you speak of making vast sums doing it the right way, I think you are being naive. Most of the people making more than $2 million per year are making that much because they were lucky. Either they were born into a family with money or they happened to be in the right place at the right time and got a tremendous break. I'm not saying they don't work hard. Some do and some don't. I'm saying accruing wealth in America has a lot to do with how much wealth you started with. I can show you a lot of folks making less than $50,000 a year who work just as hard -- or harder -- than some of these people making fortunes. Are you really willing to argue that Tom Cruise and Paris Hilton work harder than the average farm laborer?
And, for the record, I would begrudge Craig Dubow making $4 million to $7 million per year even if the company was doing great. That's too much money for one person to pocket when hundreds of thousands of American kids don't have enough to eat.
So, go ahead and call me a communist or socialist or whatever you will. The bottom line is the citizens of most major industrialized nations have less poverty, better health care and a higher standard of living than we do. The America I was taught to believe in was a world leader that preached things like equality and justice. You don't see much of that these days.
What's more, the economic collapse that we're digging out of now was caused by the ultra-wealthy power brokers and politicians in this nation. And it's hitting the little guys a lot harder than it hit them. So, tell me again why it would be a bad thing to levee ridiculously high taxes on people once they make more than money than the average person earns in 10 years.
12:59 -- Agreed. How do you earn a bonus working for a company that is losing value every year. I can see sales people making extra money if they have a remarkable year, but that should be paid out as commission, not a bonus.
ReplyDeleteJim,
ReplyDeleteThis is a good post, but a better exercise would be to add in all the bonuses and restricted stock for all GMC members and divide by the number of layoffs this year.
Don't forget, in the boards eye's, these executives are doing their jobs by laying off people. They get rewarded for reducing staff. It is bonus determination time at Gannett now, so, for all those VP's and above, it is in their best interest to prove they are good business people and worthy of a maximum bonus by firing staff.
2:38, no disrespect, but the entire premise of America wasn't built upon telling people "You can only make XX much, and then we'll simply tax the entire rest or make you give it away." Whether you like it or not, this is a capitalist, not socialist, nation. We do not "cap" the rewards of ambition, because, ultimately, it would discourage such ambition and then discourage the kind of "let's build something big" innovation that results in opportunity of all kinds for all classes of society.
ReplyDeletePointing fingers at those at the top of GCI and saying, "See? This is what capitalism creates and it all must come to an end," is indeed naive. The story of GCI isn't about leaders who have made far too much. It's about leaders who have made far too much for the wrong reasons -- managing only for the short-term in the interest of personal gain instead of the long-term in the interest of health and growth for the company they oversee.
2:38 I mean President Obama, thanks for stopping by.
ReplyDelete9:25- Great comment. Thoughtful and intelligent.
ReplyDeleteJim- Great rebuttal. And TRUE.
Why can't we have more of this on the blog? It seems I spend a lot of time sifting through a whole bunch of whining and bitching for few nuggets of useful information.
Could we have a separate area specifically for posts such as these? Perhaps we could call it the adult room. Err, maybe that's not the best name, but you get the idea.
2:41- I would rather they be paid out as a "bonus". Here's why: a "bonus" is at the discretion of the company. Whereas a "commision" is based on a quantifiable number that is legally bound.
For example: (and I personally know this has happened to many sales reps).
"Ms. Smith. We've decided to change your bonus structure for last month. You are not receiving your payout this month because of that"
If Ms. Smith were paid on a commisionable basis the company would have been legally bound to pay out whatever percentage was legally aggreed to. (i.e 10% of sales).
This should be great nugget for all you ad sales reps in the company. It explains why you don't get a percentage of your sale, but a flat bonus payout when you hit goal.
To tie it all up...... Why are our dumbass shareholders not telling these executives that they aren't getting THEIR bonuses?
What makes the bonuses even more comical is that there is nothing concrete either one of them have to do to "earn" it, or at least I couldn't find it explained clearly. I do remember seeing something about diversity being one of the factors. So, what's comical is that bonuses were awarded to the heads of a company that has a history of laying off people who are 40 and older. Yeah right, that shows a committment to diversity. You betcha.
ReplyDelete"What most people don't seem to realize is that there is just as much money to be made out of the wreckage of a civilization as from the upbuilding of one."
ReplyDeleteWritten by Margaret Mitchell, in the novel Gone With the Wind (sorry copy editors, no underline or italics possible here...); spoken to Scarlett O'Hara by the scandalous speculator, Rhett Butler.
Gannett corporate is making money hand over fist as they implement the wreckage of the print media industry.
8:09 here. I'm not saying there should be a limit on what people can make. I just think there needs to be some type of rule to REQUIRE oversight. In other words, stopping people from running a company into the ground (taking hundreds or thousands of hardworking employees along with it) then walking away not only scott free, but also with a fat bonus, golden parachute, etc. THAT is what is wrong with modern corporate America. If you do the job right, help the company thrive (without massive job cuts) then by all means, take your bonuses. If you make stupid choices, pander to Wall Street at the expense of jobs, etc. then "No soup for you!"
ReplyDeleteYes, I know Madoff, Kozlowski, Lay, etc. got their days in court. But before that happened, how many innocent people did they destroy? That practice, in my eyes, it what is TRULY unAmerican.
I don't necessarily have the answers. But that is what must be forced to stop by legislation. Thinking these selfish rich jerks who do this are somehow going to have a moral epiphany without being forced to is extremely naive.
Dubow and his band could scoff, and rightly so, at the idea that forgoing their bonuses would directly prevent children from going hungry in America.
ReplyDeleteHowever -- and here is where if there is a Hell for corporate executives, he, Matore, Dickey and Hunke will surely go -- they cannot in good conscience ignore the fact that their bonuses were picked directly from the pockets of the hardworking men and women they laid off.
If parents have no income over a period of time, or a reduced income for the rest of their working lives, the domino effect over their life span and that of their children is going to be very dire, indeed.
6:14 -- The premise that America was built on has little relevance to this discussion because countries evolve. I can argue -- successfully, I think -- that today's America has little resemblance to the America that was originally founded. The country has gone through many transitions over the years, some positive, some negative.
ReplyDeleteWould you bring back slavery? Would you refuse women the right to vote? Would you allow only landowners the right to vote? All of these things were considered perfectly acceptable in the America of our forefathers. Were they right?
I would also like to know why you believe America is not a socialist country. America is a country with a capitalist-socialist balance and it has been for a LOOONG time.
Do you think police protection, fire protection, public schools and public roads are all private ventures? There are also many other areas of the country that are socialized, and most of them are for the betterment of our society. Are they all perfectly run? No. But the conservative propaganda that capitalism somehow excludes socialist principles is just ridiculous. Most European nations have a capitalist-socialist mix, and they do just fine while reducing poverty rates, providing healthcare for their people, etc.
Your argument is that we have to be more capitalist so that we can be a world leader, and it doesn't wash. Right now, we are the world leader in CEO pay, but we are no longer the world leader in technology. We are also no longer the world leader in manufacturing and several other key industries. This is despite the fact that executive earnings are, per capita, higher than anywhere in the world. If you don't believe me, do some research.
Blind adherence to statements like, "We're capitalist, like it or get out," is a real problem. I'm not proposing we become the former Soviet union. I'm proposing we become more like the many European nations that have less poverty and still have capitalist economies.
All you have to do is look at the fact that the number of poor in this country has grown by leaps and bounds over the past 30 years while a very small percentage of the population -- less than 3 percent -- has acquired more than 85% of all wealth. Is that really the way you want to live? Shouldn't there be more outrage?
xxx What's more, the economic collapse that we're digging out of now was caused by the ultra-wealthy power brokers and politicians in this nation xxx
ReplyDeleteNo, it was caused by the collapse of a real estate market inflated by speculation. If you look at the foreclosures, it was middle-class and lower middle class people who caused this by exploiting loose lending laws to get mortgages on houses they could not possibly afford. The plutocrats had little to do with it, and have not suffered from what I see.
As far as the politicians and bureaucrats, they did nothing much to stop the excesses because no one wanted to be the party pooper.
Always has and always will be for former and current GCI corporate top execs and managers: it's all about greed, stuffing your pockets to the max, and the best health and retirement packages. The only decent ones who come to mind are Tom and John Curley.
ReplyDeleteZero moral compass + board member of a MIT place that studies ethics and humanity = WTF?
ReplyDeleteI'll try to circle this discussion back to Gannett's senior leadership: the Gannett Management Committee in particular. That's the group of top managers including Dubow, Martore, Dickey, Hunke and others.
ReplyDelete1. Their annual pay, including their large bonuses, is nominally set by the board of directors' compensation committee. But as regulatory filings show, Dubow's group employs outside consultants -- at company expense! -- to prepare expensive research and presentations to the comp committee, arguing in favor of bigger and bigger paychecks.
In other words, the four comp committee members are largely captives of the very executives they're supposed to supervise. If they don't reward these executives, Dubow will see that they aren't allowed to stand for re-election to the larger board of directors. They would then lose five- and six-figure annual fees. Long-time director Karen Hastie Williams, one of the comp committee members, is particularly guilty in this regard.
9:32 a.m. says there should be some oversight. Well, there is: It's this board of directors, which represents the shareholders. There also are regulatory agencies, including the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. But unless and until shareholders grow restive -- and this means the biggest shareholders, the pension and mutual funds, nothing will change.
2. I firmly believe Dubow, Martore and the others long ago decided Gannett is a goner: That is, no matter what they do, they believe market forces will grind the company to dust, taking with it thousands of employees. The strategic plan -- whatever its current form -- is window-dressing meant to create the impression before Wall Street that management is actually doing something to turn around the company. Wall Street plays along with this game because it, too, has given up.
What does this have to do with their top pay and layoffs? Dubow & Co. see these job losses as inevitable, so why not profit from them? That's the view of a group of people who have zero moral compass.
Here, too, the big shareholders don't care. Unlike the families that once owned the newspapers and TV stations now comprising Gannett. Like top management, these big shareholders aren't based in the communities where Gannett does business. They don't fear running into laid-off workers in the supermarket aisles.
Well, I suppose ultimately, it's the board of directors that should be ashamed of themselves - but they too want to continue taking their yearly stipend for being on the board - it's pretty decent pay from what I remember for the amount of time they put in.
ReplyDeleteImagine how quickly they could have paid down the debt and increased profits if Dubow, Martore et al had their bonuses reduced for each employee they laid off. They would have benefitted the company's bottom through reduced payroll AND reduced bonuses. And maybe, just maybe, they wouldn't have ruined as many lives.
ReplyDeleteA true win-win.
I think Jim is right about corporate writing off Gannett as a goner, but I disagree they are fooling Wall Street. Look at what happened when GCI reported Q3 revenues were flat y/y. That was proof of what Wall Street has been saying about newspapers having no future and in a terminal decline.
ReplyDeleteThe only solution corporate has now is to improve profits. I think they clearly realize that means even lower revenues because there will be fewer ad salesmen and fewer sales, etc. It won't disguise the decline in revenues, but will make the losses more pallatable. I also have been expecting them to increase the dividend.
I would much prefer it had Gannett taken a stand to fight to the death, as has been taken by the NYT, the WSJ and MNI. But it did not. Neither did Lee or Media General.
These execs are committing a crime....robbery pure and simple.
ReplyDeleteThe board doesn't care as long as they continue to get their money for attending a few meetings a year and rubber stamping Gannett executive decisions. Stockholders don't care as long as the have their dividends paid and can sell their stock for a profit. And Gannett management certainly doesn't care as long as the names and faces of the people laid off can remain nothing more than ink on a spreadsheet.
ReplyDeleteAs long as all this continues, everyone will just go along merrily. Meanwhile, workforce suffering remains rampant.
I guess it's true that you can't legislate ethics and morality. Are there any other solutions to this injustice? In other words, what can workers do to correct this?
ReplyDeleteThese are rational people and they are making rational decisions as they see the future. If workers don't like it, then their option is to leave. You are not going to change them, and the economic forces are such that they feel they have to act in some way. If you stay, you are tacitly acknowledging this is your future and at some point could become a layoff target yourself.
ReplyDeleteThis must go down as the bleakest thread I've ever read on this blog.
ReplyDeleteI believe we're on the eve of class warfare in this country. And it can all be blamed on the top 1 percent wanting too big of a slice of an ever-shrinking pie. Layoffs hit the little guys far more than the top earners. Eventually, add all those angry little guys up and what you will have is a formidable mob that will eventually fight back. This country, and this company, worked far better when those at the top didn't earn 200 times that of the average employee. But now adding insult to injury is the attack of these bloated CEOs, publishers and upper management types on the middle class. They can keep laying us off and rewarding themselves for doing so, but eventually things will collapse and they or their children will join the rest of us on the unemployment line.
ReplyDeleteRight on 11:56: How much the Curleys are missed now that the Reign of Craig has lasted this long. I can't claim to know either of them well. They at least conveyed a sense of leadership, vision and, yes, decency. I'm sure they would have found layoffs unavoidable too. But I bet it all would have been handled in a far, far classier, compassionate manner, and probably wouldn't have been nearly as deep.
ReplyDeleteAt least the Curleys went out quietly in style without lavish demands on their exit/retirement contracts/packages, unlike greedy McCorkindale's demands and rants. Don't forget, folks, that Martore was McCorky's favorite.
ReplyDeleteKnowing how destructive they've been to all the people who've lost jobs and their families, do these suits actually sleep well at night, or do meds keep them going?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI walked out the door once with Tom Curley by chance on our way to the parking garage at the end of the day. There was some kind of tremendous post-9/11 news going, and I just happened to make a comment about the day's events to him, not even knowing the man personally. Instead of offering a simple, terse, polite-but-I-really-would-rather-not-interact-with-you reply, he stopped in his tracks and offered his perspective on the events and seemed genuinely eager and engaged to talk about it. I walked away from the brief conversation thinking, "That must be a guy that people really WANT to work for ... to really WANT to make his vision succeed ..."
ReplyDeleteIn my limited exposure with Dubow and the rest of his posse, my impression has been ... otherwise.
9:25 so true. You really nailed it.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteIn case anyone in Crystal Palace hasn't already noticed, Dubow and posse can barely look any security guard in the eye (or greet or acknowledge any of them) while passing by the front desk in the lobby. That alone says a lot.
ReplyDelete1:49: That's Dubow for you. Literally walked through our offices three times in his first month at the CP, saying nothing and practically scowling at us as opposed to giving an encouraging "Hi gang!," as you'd expect a leader to do.
ReplyDeleteMy gosh, this man is something out of a Dickens novel, isn't he?
Unless you work for upper management, Martore and Dubow are absolutely freaking clueless when it comes names and faces in Crystal Palace. And if you're lucky to get stuck on an elevator alone with one of them, don't expect any conversation - it's stuffy like all the oxygen got sucked out.
ReplyDelete@11:54 -- I'm sure you believe that if your only news source is Gannett papers and Rush Limbaugh, but it should be common knowledge by now that the housing crisis was largely driven by lenders and the politicians who allowed them to do whatever they wanted. Were some middle class homebuyers complicit? Yes. Were they the biggest part of the problem? No. There have been news articles and documentary films about this, and there's an article about it in this week's issue of Rolling Stone. Certainly, there is room for argument, but the only people who really seem to arguing that the housing crisis was brought on by little guys are people who are extremely wealthy and those who have bought into their juggernaut of a PR machine.
ReplyDeleteJim, if you're right about top management writing off Gannett as a goner, then watch for the execs to "harvest" what remains - selling off buildings and other assets as you would harvest the organs from a body. One of the big assets to watch from that perspective is CareerBuilder. The strategy in that case would be to ride the print revenues as long as possible before shutting paper after paper. The pitch to Wall Street would be that Gannett is going to hold up its profit margins at the expense of everything else, which means continued layoffs and asset sales. That would turn the company into a short-term buy for Wall Street, based on whether investors believe the company will meet profit goals quarter-by-quarter. But it will mean no investments for the long term, and at some point everything will fall off a cliff and the company will close.
ReplyDelete