Anonymous@9:39 a.m. posed that question, adding: "Some of us are only paying attention on a peripheral level."
In a comment I just posted, here's my response:
Rudd Davis came to USA Today four years ago with great expectations. He had started an action-sports site, BNQT, when he was reportedly just 24. Pronounced "banquet," the site, aimed at young male readers, has been known recently for publishing borderline nude photos of young women. Davis sold BNQT to USA Today in January 2008.
By summer 2010, when Publisher Dave Hunke was planning a big USAT reorganization, Davis -- then just 30 years old -- had become something of a wunderkind in Hunke's inner circle.
Young, West Coast-based and a Gannett outsider, he represented the new generation of tech-savvy readers that USAT and other newspapers were chasing. Hunke appointed Davis to a new position: vice president for business development, where he was to work closely with the newsroom on developing content that appealed to advertisers.
That was controversial because it was seen as weakening the traditional ethical divide between the business and news sides. It soon emerged that Davis -- with no apparent relevant background -- had been put in charge of negotiating bulk single-copy USAT sales to major hotel chains: the valuable "Blue Chip" program.
Then, just two months ago -- in what was clearly a sign of support from the top brass -- Davis was promoted to a new position over a new unit: president of the USA Today Travel Media Group. He was to report to the deputy publisher, Susie Ellwood -- a position she has held since June 2011.
"He is a highly creative entrepreneur and we know he will lead this division with the innovative and entrepreneurial spirit that it requires,” Ellwood said.
Ellwood is seen as Hunke's likely successor. Her moves, including a management shake-up just last week, are closely watched.
Now, it appears, Davis is suddenly gone, under circumstances shrouded in mystery -- to the public, anyway.
His name still appears on a roster of senior USAT executives, but the list is clearly outdated. The newspaper has not responded to my query about his employment status, and a phone message left for him yesterday was not returned.
What has happened to this high-flyer, who vaulted so quickly to USAT's top ranks?
Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write jimhopkins[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the rail, upper right.
In a comment I just posted, here's my response:
 |
| Davis |
By summer 2010, when Publisher Dave Hunke was planning a big USAT reorganization, Davis -- then just 30 years old -- had become something of a wunderkind in Hunke's inner circle.
Young, West Coast-based and a Gannett outsider, he represented the new generation of tech-savvy readers that USAT and other newspapers were chasing. Hunke appointed Davis to a new position: vice president for business development, where he was to work closely with the newsroom on developing content that appealed to advertisers.
That was controversial because it was seen as weakening the traditional ethical divide between the business and news sides. It soon emerged that Davis -- with no apparent relevant background -- had been put in charge of negotiating bulk single-copy USAT sales to major hotel chains: the valuable "Blue Chip" program.
 |
| Ellwood |
"He is a highly creative entrepreneur and we know he will lead this division with the innovative and entrepreneurial spirit that it requires,” Ellwood said.
Ellwood is seen as Hunke's likely successor. Her moves, including a management shake-up just last week, are closely watched.
Now, it appears, Davis is suddenly gone, under circumstances shrouded in mystery -- to the public, anyway.
His name still appears on a roster of senior USAT executives, but the list is clearly outdated. The newspaper has not responded to my query about his employment status, and a phone message left for him yesterday was not returned.
What has happened to this high-flyer, who vaulted so quickly to USAT's top ranks?
Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write jimhopkins[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the rail, upper right.
I never had the privledge of meeting or working directly with Rudd Davis. His accomplishment of creating an action-sports site (BNQT) at the age of 24 is extraordinary, and will always be praised.
ReplyDeleteI doubt that his departure is related to the recent drama over the controversial photos. I think the photos were in a direction that is similar to many other sports-publications (SI, Maxim, etc.) I think the galleries reflect the audience of that particular publication/product. After all, it is not Highlight's magazine for children.
Best wishes to Rudd Davis and his future ventures. Keep creating and innovating.
Square peg, round hole. He never belonged here to begin with and certainly not in charge of our valuable hotel programs. Another Hunke mistake, but I guess he gets to make as many as he wants until they turn off the lights.
ReplyDelete"Now, it appears, Davis is suddenly gone, under circumstances shrouded in mystery -- to the public, anyway."
ReplyDeleteOK, I'll bite. What's your source, other than "it appears"? How do you know this?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWhy'd you delete that comment Jim? I'm starting to think you have a relationship inside that gets you to pull the stuff that is a little too disruptive.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete4:21 I delete posts that use the word "moron."
ReplyDelete3:12 A reader who I know and trust 100% told me Davis is gone.
ReplyDeleteHere's an edited version of 4:41's comment:
ReplyDeleteI've been watching the corporate world for years. Almost always when an executive departs, there is some sort of planned exit, a gratuitous memo, even a going away party.
What Gannett and USA today ISN'T saying speaks volumes about Rudd's hasty exit. Here was a guy who inured himself with Hunke, got at least two promotions and placed in positions of authority. This isn't being about unqualified, unseasoned or hopelessly out of his league, as many here have repeatedly asserted. People such as Hillkirk and Heather Frank were moved out but over to cushy jobs and high praise. In many ways, young Mr. Davis may have accomplished far more at an early age, but as another poster suggests, was a bad fit at Gannett, lacking the skills and experience to deal with big hotel chains.
Incompetence, in and of itself, has never been a fireable offense at Gannett, although it should be. young Davis would have been able to coast as long as benefactors such as Dave Hunke covered for him.
I for one appreciate Jim Hopkins' oversight on his blog (deleting according to his criteria, i.e., it's his blog), but I appreciate even more his fairness in re-posting a deletion in an edited form. That's pretty cool.
ReplyDeleteClassic skulduggery. When GCI first began its morph to circus mode, my site's publisher literally disappeared overnight. No explanation. No info. Certainly no "going away" party. Just POOF!!!
ReplyDeleteThey had a new guy as publisher the very next day, so of course it was all well-planned.
No information. While there is always some intrigue going about any large corporation, this heralded by an extreme factor the new corporate neurosis.
I meant "culture."
What a totally grim situation. "Death spiral" and "the next Kodak" appear to fit. If Carl Icahn were involved, there'd be about 22 fewer names in the exec-list.
ReplyDeleteWeird and grim.
The difference is Kodak has no cash flow and Gannett does. Sorry but wishful thinking doesn't make it do. Many of the posters here including Hopkins need to take a business course. You have no clue how a public company works.
Delete4:54 here. Not sure why you edited my post. My point is something outside the norm precipitated Davis' quick departure. Something that was a violation of company ethics. Or worse. Someone this high up the food chain is not let go in a vacuum unless otherwise.
ReplyDeletePublic companies usually have shareholders' interests at heart and competent oversight. This one does not.
ReplyDeleteYou need to pay attention to the first part of your statement
DeleteAfter buying BNQT, why didn't we just have this guy develop more youth oriented websites instead of trying to make him something he wasn't?
ReplyDeleteWhich brilliant executive thought Rudd Davis was a fit for the corporate world, even in a Pee Wee Playhouse like Gannett?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWas BNQT a success for anyone but Rudd who sold the bill of goods to Gannett? I don't think it was making a profit for USAT, was it? So why was he so revered by Hunke?
ReplyDelete2:13 raises vaid questions about Hunke's ability to pick talent. We would like to believe Susie Ellwood is a solid choice as his deputy, despite her empty memos and promises. The rest of his other picks are dubious, to say the least. Check out the masthead and tell me which of these people rates their lofty titles or status.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteSince the dawn of blogs Gannet has been snapping up whatever strikes them as young and hip. But,like an old auntie who buys her college-age niece a Miley Cyrus T-shirt bedazzled with the words Rock N Roll Party, GCI is unable to see the wide gap between hip and lame. Easily dazzled and desperate to find a cure, GCI keeps shopping for the Emperor's new clothes. The pay big for unproven, uninteresting, unprofitable blogs and declare that they are cutting-edge money makers. Did BNQT ever turn a profit other than the great windfall that came when GCI bought them? I don't think so.
ReplyDeleteJim, reporters raise questions all the time. You still do. Why remove my post which raises a legitimate question about a division president? It was not inflammatory or out of line.
ReplyDelete9:02 Some of the guessing here is presenting serious allegations without any evidence. It's unfair.
ReplyDeleteIt's entirely possible that Davis suddenly got sick of all the Corporate bullshit and simply quit on his own.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteIt wasn't an allegation. It was a question. And Davis did not quit on his own. Are you going to remove that statement, too? At least be even handed in what you decide to remove or post.
ReplyDeleteJim, Rudd did not quit. There should be no debate about that.
ReplyDelete9:29 To clarify: Some readers have speculated about possible wrong-doing, but without any specific evidence.
ReplyDeleteAs in all such posts, I'm trying to rein in some of the more wild speculation.
Jim thrives on wild speculation. That's why some people here are confused.
ReplyDeleteUSA Today breeds wild speculation as much as Jim. For weeks after Jack Kelley's ouster, they declined to come clean with staff, calling it a personnel issue. Management discourages open debate and suggestions, even basic questions at increasingly useless staff meetings.
ReplyDeleteEllwood and Hunke ought to try some honesty and frankness, even on the rare occasion. Paying lip service to transparency and disclosure is just another way to alienate an already alienated staff.
Jim is hoping Rudd will tell him what happened, since Rudd has reached out to him in the past. Protect the source.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteJim should refrain from wild speculation about corporate b.s. That's unfair, Jim.
ReplyDeleteSomeone said Rudd has "reached out" to Jim in the past. Just thought we should discuss that.
ReplyDeleteBNQT turned a profit in 2010. BNQT turned a profit in 2011. Childish and inaccurate postings but par for the course. Jim will let anything run even when easily verified.
ReplyDeleteJim is in one of his morality police/I'm master of this domain/wizard of oz moods. So don't ask any questions of Jim. He is obviously protecting someone.
ReplyDeleteRudd was the guy who told Jim he'd need private security at the shareholder's meeting.
Turned a profit? How quaint. What does that mean in $$$?
ReplyDelete10:33, a previous poster (2:33) implied the site wasn't turning a profit.
ReplyDeleteTry to keep up. Read, think, then post.
10:21 BNQT may have been profitably those two years.
ReplyDeleteBut where is the verification you speak of? Gannett doesn't break out earnings results for any of its operating units, including that one.
BNQT might have made a couple dollars profit (though I am still doubtful) but I would bet my life savings that Gannett hasn't recouped its investment and probably never will.
ReplyDeleteJim, that crap is beyond silly. In other words, the unfounded claim that the unit wasn't profitable can't be shot down because there are no reports about specific units? So why do you allow the original claim?
ReplyDeleteThis stuff is a joke. Start screening it out. Not. That. Hard.
so what has happen to Davis?
ReplyDeleteWhy do people assume BNQT was successful? It was a bit player, if that, in the action sports community. Talk to the X Games crowd, and most of them won't even have heard of it.
ReplyDeleteBy comparison -- MMA Junkie, the recent blog acquisition, is a huge player in the MMA media. Of course, it's run by a bunch of veteran journalists, so that's not as hip.
Who's the sycophant below my post?
ReplyDelete