An independent journal about the Gannett Co. and the news industry's digital transition
From a Gannett Blog post four years ago today:"Gannett's stock traded as low as $36.18 today -- a new 10-year low -- after Banc of America cut its forecast for where the stock is headed. The investment bank issued a similarly negative outlook for shares of McClatchy, GateHouse Media and Lee Enterprises. And in its harshest assessment, it urged investors to dump New York Times Co.'s stock."Now, four years later, GCI is trading for less than $11 a share.
Yet Dubow walked away with 37 million. I want that job. Pay me 37 million to destroy a company.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Another Monday. As we like to say, "Cover me, I'm going in."
9:52That's a good one!Kind of like whistling quietly through the cemetary.Stay under the radar!
And for some context, we may want to consider that four years ago today -- on 28 November 2007 -- the afore-mentioned Bank of America closed at $40.44 per share. This morning, it opened at $5.50.
What is sad about the state of the Design Centers, is that it has become apparent to me that in a few cases, the upper managers are putting highly under qualified people in the Design Editor roles, only because these people either kissed their ass or simply because the manager knows they can get what they want from the person that has been working with them for years.I can only assume that is the case because I'm aware of some people in Design Editor roles who have never managed a staff, and in some cases only ever worked with one department of a newspaper (living or sports for example). Theses people are getting the jobs over designers with lite management duties, who have worked on all sections of a newspaper, and know the paper and it's products forward and backwards.At first I thought it was because the person 'on site' already was a better designer, but in the past week I've come to find in one case, a design editor just plane doesn't have skills a designer should have for how long they have been in the business. And I'm not just talking about being able to do something simple like a clipping path. I'm talking about a complete lack of news judgement and a complete lack of attention to detail.While I can understand an upper managers' tendency to hire a 'known' factor to be their go-to person over a group of newspapers. To put somebody in that roll who lacks original thinking, intermediate design skills, basic journalism accuracy and any kind of familiarity with the half-dozen or so other sections a newspaper puts out, speaks to the corrupted good-ole' boy mentality that upper management in Gannett seems to love.I'm just glad I didn't bother applying to any of them and found a job locally before the transition. It's just sad to watch editors at the local papers being forced to accept a person in charge of there paper who they don't know, and is under qualified to even do the job.
their paper*sorry :-)
Every year at this time, The Courier-Journal - presumably in the name of "reader involvement" - holds a Holiday Haiku contest in which readers are invited to summarize the year past using the 17-syllable Japanese poem form. They then waste a couple of pages on Christmas Day publishing the entries. I propose that Jim host a counter-contest here on the blog, with poems summarizing the last year at Gannett. Here's the first entry:Papers have no newsStaffs sacrificed to rewardFeckless management
I don't know if I've missed discussions on this, but has anyone ever heard of Gannett's BNQT website? http://www.bnqt.com/
2:48 What else is new, business as usual. Plus it is a smart move ( which they seldom make any more) to hire a person who has a clue about what the job entails
Couple thingsOur Pressroom ranks in Quality every period in the top five of all GCI papers. It's not going to stay that way for long. We are down to a couple of press ops on each shift, we do no preventive maitience anymore, and second the crew don't give a shit anymore about quality or the company. They cut our pay, work us short handed and get no pat on the back for doing a good job..EVER. We come to work, put in our 8 hours and go home. No one cares any more about QC or getting paper out on time. Bottom line. we are treated like shit, so we treat the printing like shit. New motto in our room.. I don't care any more, just hear to get paid until the doors close. GCI sucks
I can't believe there is anyone still ranking quality! Once they yanked our ability to tone photos and forced us to use the lightweight see-thru 27.5 lb garbage paper, what was the point?Hell, a lot of our papers don't even print at our own sites or even Gannett sites. If there's someone out there grading papers save a couple bucks and just stop it. Like 4:31 is saying, we all know nobody cares about quality anymore - let's stop faking it.
Good God, what is that BNQT site all about?? "BNQT Media Group is where 18 to 34 year old guys turn for their fill of the latest in action sports, lifestyle and culture - Over 10 Million of them every month." I especially liked this photo gallery: http://www.bnqt.com/photos/album/Thanksgiving-Kitchen-Hotties/1026Now I KNOW Frank Gannett is spinning in his grave.
Missed that one 5:32. BTW, just so everyone doesn't make the same mistake I did, some photos are NSFW. Unless, apparently, you work for Gannett. Then it's ok.
The ENQT site is pathetic. Nothing but a wank site for hotties and sports. Not surprised Gannett is involved since they are dumbing the company down to chase money. It would be interesting to find how much Tysonmakes off this venture. That might give us a clue if this is what we can expect next at our sites.
seekingalpha.com/article/310618-can-these-5-sluggish-newspaper-companies-survive-the-digital-age?I say NO.
Hey Susan Motiff. How's that vertical strategy that you sold Hunke on doing? I'll answer. For you great. You were named a VP. For USA Today not so good. In fact it's a disaster. But you are winning. Your "strategy" has cost the company $ and people but yet you continue to be the VP of strategy. Where's the revenue that you promised? Go figure.
You can laugh at BNQT if you want, but the guys that sold that bill of goods to Gannett are now sr vps, like the rudderman.
RE BNQT: let's face it . . . the most profitable web business is PORN. So why wouldn't Gannett want a "piece" of the "pie"? Your local sports-talk radio station has the same galleries on THEIR website.Last week there was a discussion of whether prostitutes ought to be able to advertise their "goods and services". Perhaps Gannett can monetize this imperative hawking (insert whore joke here) in a way that Craigslist does not.Speaking of Craigslist, Craig himself has come out in favor of . . . FACT-CHECKING. Read about it at Romenesco's blog.
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 in a reader