From the FAQ that U.S. newspaper division President Bob Dickey distributed yesterday with his memo announcing furloughs:
Q. Will there be layoffs this year?
A. We want to avoid future layoffs and hope that we can do so by taking steps now to control expenses and focus on top line growth.
Q. Will there be another furlough in Q2?
A. Our hope is that future furloughs will not be necessary but business conditions combined with economic trends will be the major factors as we continue to assess this market. No decision on this can be made at this time.
Read the entire 18-question FAQ.
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
13 comments:
Jim says: "Proceed with caution; this is a free-for-all comment zone. I try to correct or clarify incorrect information. But I can't catch everything. Please keep your posts focused on Gannett and media-related subjects. Note that I occasionally review comments in advance, to reject inappropriate ones. And I ignore hostile posters, and recommend you do, too."
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Translated: "Yep, and yep."
ReplyDeleteYep.
ReplyDeleteAnd what is "top line growth?" Seriously.
2:33 top line growth is growing year over year revenues vs bottom-line because top line wasn't there and you cut expenses to achieve bottom-line growth.
ReplyDeleteThe "top line" is money coming in; i.e., advertising sales revenue.
ReplyDelete"Bottom line,'' on the other hand, is profits.
These terms come from accounting spreadsheets, where revenue figures are shown at the top, and profits are shown on the bottom.
What about bonuses and executive compensation - are they on the table, too?
ReplyDeleteMaybe I am not the brightest bulb in this sweatshop, but I think I glimpse the future that corporate is now sketching out for this company. And that is one that will mean even more diminishing of USPC and banking the future on shoring up the national brand USAT. With the advent of anytime TV, consumers (and so advertisers who chase them) are going to gravitate to national newspaper brands they know like the NYT, WSJ and USAT. The big brands will be the winners, and those of us toiling at provincial newspapapers are, well, yesterday's news. Obviously, there is an alternative strategy of building on local monopolies, but I don't think Gannett wants to follow in the footsteps of Lee, Scripps and the others and become local newspaper monopolies. I believe this USAT first strategy is going to be a monumental mistake, but it is one corporate clearly is following and all USCP workers need to recognize that.
ReplyDeleteThis really isn't anything new. For the most part, this is the third year of furloughs and the template for Dickey's Q&A is essentially the same.
ReplyDelete8:32. I completely agree. Another horrible upper managment decision in a long line of horrible management decisions.
ReplyDeleteHow do the shareholders, and more importantly the board of directors who lead them not see this?
Why do they continue to award performance bonuses to this group of second rate correspondant course MBA's?
WAKE UP!
If USAT is being favored in any way, it is only relative to the sad milking of USCP for every possible dime of short-run gain. USAT's stable is full of sick horses that are not competitive. If USAT looks fat compared to the community papers, it's only because of how sick the latter truly are.
ReplyDeleteWould someone please explain why furloughing the sales staff helps the monetary bottom line? When sales staff are furloughed...guess what...they are not selling. Some newspapers in warm climates depend on the first quarter sales to make or break their year, as this is the season when distribution is at its highest. The furloughs killed sales goals last year. Wash, rinse, repeat...
ReplyDeleteWhat he really said here is, "You won't be furloughed in quarter 2 if you are laid off in quarter 1."
ReplyDeleteThey furlough the sales staff so they bring in just enough to make a profit but not enough to pay commission. Duh.
ReplyDeleteWhere there are furloughs... follows layoffs. It's the Gannett Way. :-(
ReplyDelete