Gannett and Kodak share a common heritage: They both trace their origins to Rochester, N.Y., where GCI was based for decades before moving its headquarters to Virginia, in 1986.
GCI is certainly challenged in its shift to digital. But Kodak, still based in Rochester, and struggling to make the same digital transition, is gasping for breath: Its stock plunged 54% today, closing at 78 cents, on fears the company may be running out of cash.
How much has Kodak shrunk over the past decade? A lot. It had 18,800 full-time equivalent employees at the end of 2010. In 2000: 78,400.
Compare that to GCI, where global employment hit 32,600 at the end of last year vs. 53,400 in 2000.
How much has Kodak shrunk over the past decade? A lot. It had 18,800 full-time equivalent employees at the end of 2010. In 2000: 78,400.
Compare that to GCI, where global employment hit 32,600 at the end of last year vs. 53,400 in 2000.
Who care's, this a Gannett blog. Go to your kodak lob and cry
ReplyDeleteMany of my older readers remain interested in news from Rochester.
ReplyDeleteKodak worldwide employment peaked in 1988: 145,000.
ReplyDeleteTwo companies that failed to see the wave of digital change and slowly crumbled because of it.
ReplyDeleteMy bad Jim
ReplyDeleteAh nobody cares about Rochester. Even you are stuck in the past. Geez even the blog can't get away from yesterday
ReplyDeleteGannett will end up the same way eventually, as the revenues continue to decline, maintaining a profit will become increasingly difficult and even though they are paying down debt, unfortunately it is not quick enough, revenue drops always accelerate when a company reaches the twilight of its life. I wouldn't be surprised if Gannett has about 5 years left and definitely no more than 10.
ReplyDeleteI think Gannett's done a hell of a job. McClatchy almost dead, once might Tribune almost dead, Knight Riidder dead, Lee almost dead, Belo dead, Freedom dead, Media News life support. Gannett cash flows enormous. Sorry haters the readers gave spoken. They've moved on. You guys are just stuck in the past. Gannett has done the best job of all the traditional newspaper companies. Hurts doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteWhen I was an editor, I attended a gathering of publishers (NAA) and editors (ASNE) in DC a few years ago. A highly touted seminar featured Kodak as a company that had remade itself for the digital era. Fools.
ReplyDeleteYeah 8:49- Our sinking ship is better than your sinking ship. Great point. Maybe when the water is up to your neck you'll figure it all out. Jackass.
ReplyDeleteI think Gannett's done a hell of a job. McClatchy almost dead, once might Tribune almost dead, Knight Riidder dead, Lee almost dead, Belo dead, Freedom dead, Media News life support. Gannett cash flows enormous. Sorry haters the readers gave spoken. They've moved on. You guys are just stuck in the past. Gannett has done the best job of all the traditional newspaper companies. Hurts doesn't it?
ReplyDelete9/30/2011 8:49 PM
I actually agree with you that Gannett has done better than all of their competitors, but in outlining all the news companies and their current situation you also show what a poor situation the print business finds itself. They are all victims of not adapting to change, technology and the times. Gannett has lasted longer because their size and also by the fact that their debt and bond holders have been extremely benevolent with them. You can thank the debt holders of Gannett for the companies survival not anyone that actually works for Gannett et al Craig and Co.
Actually, the Kodak information is very pertinent to this blog, if you knew enough to understand, crabby people. Rochester is now a hub by default, with Michael there. In many ways, the largest hub. And what is good for Kodak is good for Rochester, and therefore Gannett. So this is quite pertinent.
ReplyDeleteThere was a youtube video out of a Kodak rally meeting that really made it sound as if they got it and would turn things around. What was that, about 2006? Turning things around has just been darn hard.
I've moved on and have a good job outside Gannett, but still in media (specialized). I visit back here once in a great while, but it's getting too depressing. Sounds like chatter in the hall at the neighborhood hospice.
When folks like 10:59 are faced with the facts they have to resort to "jackass" 11:05 says thank the debt holders. Well who do you think negotiated the new deals? Thanks Gracia! Yeah the truth hurts.
ReplyDelete5:40 AM Don't look down- your feet are getting wet.
ReplyDelete8:49 The numbers tell a different story. Following is from a post I wrote Feb. 26, using the latest figures at the time. To emphasize: These are numbers published by Corporate -- not me.
ReplyDeleteIn a match-up selected by the company itself, Gannett's stock has fared worse than shares of the overall newspaper industry for the third consecutive year, according to the just-released annual 10-K report to federal regulators.
Corporate compares the performance of the company's stock to a peer group index it created, one comprising GCI, plus A.H. Belo, E.W. Scripps, Journal Communications, Lee Enterprises, McClatchy Co., Media General, and the New York Times Co. Corporate also compares GCI's performance to the broader S&P 500 index.
Had you invested $100 on Dec. 25, 2005, in GCI; the peer group, and the S&P, here's what you would have had this past Dec. 26:
* GCI: $30.47
* Peer group: $37.50
* S&P: $111.99
Beyond the obvious, GCI's underperformance over this period is noteworthy because it covers the five years since Craig Dubow was made CEO, in July 2005.
Moreover, it shows GCI's tumble hasn't simply been a matter of the stock suffering along with the rest of the industry. Under this management team, in fact, GCI has done even worse.
Game, set and match to Jim there!
ReplyDeleteAnd another day goes by, which translates into one less day of Gannett's existence on the planet.
Hey 8:12pm, what makes you think they'll last even 5 more years? They just packaged 1/3rd on the company into an entity ready for a fire-sale.
Let's see: Jim talks about stick prices. Of course the companies I listed are out of business it on life support. Sorry Jim but Gannett's cash flows are the envy if the industry. Any of the other companies would trade places in a second. In addition, based on your reader's posts about the GPS indicates that they have no understanding of the transaction. The model is the first step in extending the life of print. Geez if those other companies are doing so well why aren't my colleagues going to work there by the thousands. Oh that's right they aren't hiring. Sorry haters, wishing it doesn't make it true. Gannett is doing just fine. Payne, Beusse, Lougee, Banikarim keep doing what you're doing!!!!
ReplyDelete1:31, that's a joke, right?
ReplyDelete1:31 I talk about stock prices because that, in the end, is how Gannett's owners measure the company's prospects -- and the performance of Craig Dubow's management team.
ReplyDeleteIf GCI's cash flows through the end of last year were the envy of the industry, why wasn't that reflected in the company's stock price?
Face it Jim you see what you want to see. Yes the stock price stinks. That's a reflection of the lack of an articulated vision. That being said the cash flow is enormous. You can't argue that away. Sorry Jimbo but sometimes the truth is the truth
ReplyDeleteKodak has been in a death spiral for years, so it's no big deal here in Rochester. Over the past two decades, as Kodak employees became ex-Kodak employees, many small tech companies sprung up. This has kept the Rochester economy relatively healthy and the main reason why Rochester unemployment (7.1%) is among the lowest for metro cities with a population over one million. Why is this pertinent you ask. Well, the Democrat and Chronicle is still very much alive and shipping decent revenue to Virginia. Mr. Kane was no dummy returning here (albeit with family already settled in).
ReplyDeleteJim: because the stock market is irrational and emotional these days. Loves new stuff. Hates old stuff. Stories on Kodak say its patents may be worth $3 billion (valued by outsiders, not a Kodak valuation). The current market cap is $200M. Make those numbers be rational.
ReplyDeleteYou an see the whole timeline of Kodak's fumbling and bumbling moves over the years that led it to its current sorry state in a post I wrote a week ago, just before the final act began, in my blog right here:
ReplyDeletehttp://nightowltrader.blogspot.com/2011/09/rise-and-fall-of-eastman-kodak.html
It ain't pretty.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete