Can't find the right spot for your comment? Post it here, in this open forum. Real Time Comments: parked here, 24/7. (Earlier editions.)
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
55 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)
I don't have any New Year's resolutions. What about you?
ReplyDeleteMine is to find a new job outside the newspaper business, and to be happy in what I do. 25 years in the biz has worn me down, especially the last 4 years with GCI. Happy holidays Jim and all my fellow co-workers, may the new year bring you health, happiness and good fortune
ReplyDeleteThose long storied paragraphs are a hoot- who the hell wants to read all that!
ReplyDeleteGood to just srcoll over!
Short and sweet and to the point get read!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteGannett peddling porn.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bnqt.com/photos/photo/Girls-of-The-North-Shore/21943
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteJim, why are you removing all the posts, I find them most interesting and most of the time pretty funny stuff. Nothing wrong with keeping things lite, sense most of the news on here is bad and depressing anyways
ReplyDeleteJim, please consider this... the last day of the year, GB goes totally and completely uncensored. Just one day. We are all adults here and let us be as stupid as we can.
ReplyDeleteJust delete the whole thing at noon Jan 1, but man, it would be great for all of us to speak the whole cleansing truth here with names, dates, times and situations. Let it fly, regardless of rank.
Holy cow, GB would get an all time record readership.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThe best resolution would be to convince all Gannett employees to
ReplyDeleteGet a life ....Leave freaken Gannett !
Stop whining here and acting like to you are being held prisoner against your will.
It is a free country damn it!
Just do whatever it takes and walk away!
And if
ReplyDeletethat means learning how to
use the return key on your computer correctly,or putting spaces after
punctuation,then do whatever it takes.Or
just push the power button instead of coming here every day and telling us the same old,boring shit every morning.
Get a life,indeed.
How, as head of this company, can Gracia allow this to continue?
ReplyDeleteWe deserve better.
http://bnqt.com/photos/photo/Beautiful-Beach-Babe-Bikini-Bottoms/21117
So 10:01 why do you go there? The only folks viewing this site are you g men living in their Mother's basement watching Star Trek reruns! The site doesn't pretend to be a journalism site.
ReplyDeleteOk. Then why not go all out and just do some non-journalism sites with some more skin? Where do you draw the line?
ReplyDeleteNo editorial in the Cincinnati Enquirer today. At least 10 days straight without a local editorial other than the Santa Claus ones reprised from 2004 and 1897.
ReplyDelete11:03 you are trying to impose a one size fits all. That's nit the world we live in. There is plenty of room for both. Now if you want every site to reflect your personal values I can't argue with that. You are entitled to your opinion, as am I.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous to take down G A N N E T T Systems.
ReplyDeleteComing soon - wait and see - Happy Year End
Closing ( IF YOU STILL HAVE A SYSTEM).
What's the big deal with the galleries on the BNQT site? Calling something inappropriate or obscene requires context, and the users of BNQT were obviously happy with it before Gannett bought it. Why change it now to suit the tastes of people who don't go there except to point fingers and pass judgment?
ReplyDelete1:09 As I will demonstrate shortly, the question is: Where does Gannett draw the line?
ReplyDeleteAs it moves further from its roots as a traditional, family-friendly newspaper publisher, what will its standards of taste be?
Will it tolerate and so encourage partial nudity? Full nudity? How about use of the words "fuck" and "shit?"
Do Gannett's standards extend beyond BNQT, but also to the sites that are part of the BNQT network?
To be sure, BNQT is a company meant to appeal to a very different market than that of its community newspapers. And Gannett bought it for USA Today precisely for those reasons: It wants to tap faster-growing demographics, including -- in BNQT's case -- you male consumers.
A current test for me is this: Is there anything on BNQT's site that Corporate would not want its board of directors to view -- including, especially, the two female directors, one of whom is board chairman.
1:09 again: Gannett's ownership of BNQT strikes me as being similar to other media conglomerates' ownership of adult-oriented content producers as part of their diverse portfolios. I don't go to the BNQT site because it doesn't fit my tastes, but that doesn't meant I want it to go away or be irrevocably changed. I'm surprised at your stance on this one, Jim.
ReplyDelete2:10 What is surprising about my asking questions?
ReplyDeleteI'm sure the two female executives are more offended by comments your readers post about them here then anything on BNQT. The numerous posts about a certain female publisher as well as MILFs. I think you cast stones at glass houses. Sure you've made a very weak attempt to eliminate posts but they still get through too often.
ReplyDeleteNo disrespect, but it demonstrates a bit of naive, idealistic thinking, Jim. (And I'm a Jim fan.)
ReplyDeleteIt reveals a lack of perspective on what a large corporation is -- a collection of often distinguished parts. The community newspapers are not USAT and USAT is not USAW and USAW isn't Sports Weekly and none of these are BNQT. When Murdoch bought the WSJ, he didn't turn it into the NY Post. He was smart enough to know every property needs its own identity.
As for what would you be comfortable with? It depends upon the property. If Gannett somehow ended up owning Rolling Stone or Esquire (will never happen, obviously) or attempted to roll out a new product to compete with those two, you better be damn sure there are some f-bombs skillfully woven into the copy, along with some edgy photos that never, ever would run in the community newspapers or USAT. Otherwise, you'd have no connection with the intended audience.
That's just a matter of understanding your properties and your audience, Jim. This BNQT is obviously designed for the frat boy demo, and that's how the content is positioned.
In other words: There is no issue here.
2:57 I don't have any problem with BNQT's content.
ReplyDeleteTo repeat my central question, however: Where does Gannett draw the line?
For example, would the company be OK with the following:
A subsidiary serves up a page with a photo illustration of a biker and an image of Jesus Christ. A caption shows the biker saying: "Fucking right, Jesus." And Christ replies: "Fucking crank that lookback, brosif!"
Sound far-fetched? You can see that BNQT page right here.
In the upper left-hand corner, we once more see the BNQT logo with the words, "A Gannett Company" embedded within.
Mine is to completely have nothing to do with supporting the Big G! I gave it 15 yrs of my life, they gave me a pink slip about a year ago, one of the ones that they do to not make major waves with small layoffs here and there. And yes I was a Director and a past multi ring winner. That won't get you any jobs! In fact its best to not even tell people when your looking for work. Good thing about the ring well you can pawn it for gold its worth $225.00 the diamonds are worth nothing.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the content on BNQT, people need to realize that Gannett is no longer a "newspaper" company but a media company. While I am not in the demographic target of this site I understand the desire for Gannett to own the site.
ReplyDeleteI think the people who frequent the blog to complain about Gannett's issues but then fail to realize that these other sites, publications, etc. will contribute to the revenue growth the company needs don't understand how a business is operated nor do they want to let go of the past, that being Gannett WAS a newspaper company.
To answer the questions before they are asked, I am not a corporate employee, in fact I am no longer a Gannett employee, I left on my own after 25+ years, starting in a front line position and moving to a director position. While I don't agree with the way many things have been done in the past few years at least some people at corporate are trying something to find new revenue streams.
I think we're forgetting about branding. Remember branding? Well, does the consumer, the revenue generator, realize that BNQT is a revenue stream? No. Rather, they see 20-something cheesecake in the G A N N E T T brand, aimed at a demographic that is in debt up to their keesters. Forget branding. How is that a smart move, revenue streamwise? It's not. It's the more of the same staleness destroying a "media" company already on life-support.
ReplyDeleteAll right, then, let's cut to the end-game. Gannett should buy Playboy or Hustler and whoever the big players are in the pay-per-view online porn market. No sense dipping toes into these billion-dollar waters. Let's take off our clothes and jump in. Other possibilities abound: Gannett-branded nudist colonies, sex clubs and online spouse-swapping sites. Craigslist will never know what hit it!
ReplyDeleteJim, if Gannett was/is uncomfortable with BNQT's content, then it should never have bought the site. If you bought, say, Maxim, then you better be comfortable with what the Maxim brand is about: frat-boy humor and lots of cheesecake. If you try to turn something like the Maxim-wannabe BNQT into something that closely falls in line with the 'traditional' Gannett publication, then failure will follow. In other words, 4 p.m. pretty much nails it.
ReplyDelete4:41 Although you are kidding (yes?), you help make my point.
ReplyDeleteIs there a line for Gannett anymore? After all, what was unacceptable not so long ago is acceptable today -- on BNQT.
The businesses you cite would be unacceptable today. But what about tomorrow?
Heck, until the controversial BNQT photos started showing up on this blog, I'd never heard of it. Ditto for most all of my Gannett co-workers.
ReplyDelete4:44 This assumes BNQT is already successful -- or will be soon. What if it's losing money, or is only marginally profitable, with poor prospects ahead? Is it then worth the possible damage to Gannett's brand?
ReplyDeleteGannett branded nudist colonies? Thanks for what may be the biggest laugh I have all day.
ReplyDeleteI SERIOUSLY want 'it's all within reach' tattooed on my tookus!
Someone fill us in on why there aren't staff-written editorials in Cincy. Is that CW's paper?
ReplyDelete4:40 here. Likin' 4:41's post. GCI has made so many flat-out incredible decisions in even small business strategy, totally aside from a single frayed thread of journalism, now like some LP to them.
ReplyDelete"Uh... how did it play? D'you know, chief? Mabye it's a plate for food."
Now it's excused! Not certainly by consideration; just a wave of the wrist.
It's, oh, wait! It's not a newspaper! It's a... a... media company.
What, is "media" some thing that has meaning other than content? No, it is not.
Seriously, I myself mean no one here any ill will, unlike some of the participants surprised that 7th grade is over.
I understand the embittered as well the cheerleaders since I have been both at my own expense, the former for years before the latter.
I don't understand the demise of the democratic need for news to be freely reported without agenda, this marketing.
Jim how about using f*** instead really don't want to start coming on here and dealing with the f*** word, especially from you! Also why can't GANNETT print something nasty for the ladies, all they show are women and it is a little degrading, how about some thing degrading of the fellas! I'm sure the ladies like to gawk also!
ReplyDeletePlease keep this site a little cleaner I come here for other stuff-info beside the smut talk. Thanks
4:41: Guess again. While the numbers may have changed dramatically since it was originally published, a NYT story from 2000 stated that General Motors sells more adult movies than Hustler. And while I don't equate the BNQT content I have seen with graphic pornography, the fact is this site was doing something right that prompted Gannett to purchase it. It would be foolhardy to change from what made it a success.
ReplyDeleteBreaking news.
ReplyDeleteThe New York Times today announced the sale of the New York Times Regional Newspaper Group (NYTRENG) to Halifax Media Holdings, which also owns the Daytona Beach News Journals. NYTRENG has a couple of newspapers in FL - the Ocala Star Banner, Gainesville Sun, Sarasota Herald Tribune and other newspapers in other parts of the country.
The biggest surprise in the sale was the price. All 16 papers were sold for $143 million in cash. For the math impaired, that's well under $10 million per paper. Chump change for a company the size of the NYT.
The FAQ says Halifax Media will announce who's keeping their jobs in 48 hours. Heartless bastards. Making them wait 48 hours.
Here's the Romensko take:
http://jimromenesko.com/2011/12/27/faq-for-nyt-regional-media-group-employees/
7:33 "heartless bastards?" ah don't they have to actually take control before they can determine whom to keep. Don't you have any concept how a transaction like this works? Folks Manu of you beg fir someone to buy Gannett. Well understand this, the first thing a new owner does is cut and cut deep.
ReplyDelete7:33 -- breaking news? That was announced days ago.
ReplyDeleteDays. Don't come in here acting as if you have something new.
Wow, that was a bargain price for the New York Times (NYTRENG)! I love the content and the marketing direction of the New York Times. I hope they can hold onto all of their current talent. I would hate to see the quality of the New York Times diminish due to a cut-back in resources. My thoughts and prayers to them, as they wait for answers, within this 48hour time-period.
ReplyDelete-- Best wishes to everyone in this new year. Let's try to focus on the positive perspectives and aspects in life... To gain energy and focus during these difficult times.
I believe the breaking news was the fire sale price, which was not announced days ago. The talks were announced days ago, but the finalization of the deal not till today.
ReplyDeleteIt's kind of Ironic that given his lifestyle Jim is pushing the family values agenda for Gannett.
ReplyDeleteThe unfortunate reality is Gannett management is probably trying the best they can to save Gannett and their respective salaries, perks and parachutes. Marketable collateral is no longer products or content, but employees. They cannot figure out a business model so they blind Wall Street with new ideas (which didn't work before), asses on a web site which I really liked and new VP appointments which seem to buy time. Here's a question I don't know the answer to- Projecting the current newspaper trend over the next 5 years, would Gannett be better off closing all papers January 1? For several years they've been showing better than expected numbers via layoffs, furloughs and such while crippling the quality and circulation. Are advertisers paying less today than 3 or 4 years ago? Seems like they should be paying approximately 50% less based on circulation. How does Deal Chicken support ad revenue for a grocery store or car dealership. I liked the asses on BNQT but still worry about the boobs at headquarters.
ReplyDelete9:34: And what about his lifestyle offends you so? Given that you've been dispatched and paid by corporate, you probably should know that -- for all of its many, many faults -- Gannett has always been incredibly accepting and accommodating to the gay/lesbian/bisexual folks out there. If this bothers you to some extent, then you are the one with the problem.
ReplyDelete@ 9:34, I don't understand your point. Do you believe someone living "Jim's lifestyle" isn't entitled to talk about family values?
ReplyDeletethe new GPS division is targeting millions of dollars in commerical printing revenue. how do they expect to get jobs using outdated newspaper size printing presses. they'll spend millions trying to modify the press and then what. they'll sell off all the printing facilites to someone who will be dumb enough to but it. then they'll shut down the print product. new division does not allow local site publisher to cut expenses when budgets aren't met in '12 Production and circulation has all the expenses, so good luck in the newsroom, finance, marketing and advertising depts. the cuts will come from there.
ReplyDeleteThe New York Times itself is not being sold. Just all the other papers owned by the same company as the NYT.
ReplyDelete@ 10:15 - New ideas? Seems like everything is an also ran, third rate version of something that some one else had a hit with. Groupon? Meet Deal Chicken. Except that by the time the five failures in charge at Gannett hop on the band wagon they're too late for the party.*
ReplyDelete*except pay day, they never miss a payday,
9:34 The last time I led a "lifestyle" was in Boise, which is made for outdoor activities: skiing, biking, hiking, etc.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I'm not pushing family values for anyone. To repeat, I'm simply posing questions about shifting standards on language and nudity among Gannett subsidiaries.
Jim is free to live his life hetero or other thats his life. He is not pushing anything on any of you! Just giving you info, QUIT trying to scramble the mix! But I will say keep it clean, porno is offending to most women!
ReplyDelete9:34 here. Nothing about Jims lifestyle offends me. Nothing about the pictures from the Gannett site mentioned above offend me. But givin Jims lifestyle is closer to the web site then it is to traditional "family values" I was a little surprised when he wrote
ReplyDelete"As it moves further from its roots as a traditional, family-friendly newspaper publisher, what will its standards of taste be?"
You would think he would be happy with the change and you think given his definition of family he would not think Gannett was family friendly.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete