An independent journal about the Gannett Co. and the news industry's digital transition
Finding out paid circulation for a newspaper is fairly easy. And now newspaper sites are using web traffic as part of their calculations for readership.So how do we find out what online traffic is? Is there somewhere we can see page views by site?
3:32 raises a great question. But to the best of my knowledge, there is no public site where that data is available.
ha ha ha ... rehiring laid off employees ... That's rich. Yeah, I'll sit by my phone and count the days before it rings. And when it does, I'll tell Gannett to kiss my a--. I'm in a far, far better place now, with a real future instead of this 'let's just follow fuzzy tails and see what happens' business 'strategy' that Gannett lives by. When I was at the CP, I often wondered, "Do ALL companies seem to relentlessly promote ALL top executives based upon how incredibly mediocre they are as thinkers? Because that seems to be the case here at Gannett ... Never worked with leadership that seemed incapable of coming up with a unique, compelling thought."When I was let go and forced to get 'out there' to survive, I discovered the answer to that question is clearly "No, no and no." Good companies know they can't promote mediocrity to the top and expect to be anything better than mediocre.
http://www.quantcast.com can be used to check site traffic. However, it may not be 100 percent accurate.
4:19 - our site is "not quantified," so the number is estimated. Can only be quantified by the site owner.
The corporate cheerleader from the previous thread is seriously delusional. Do you really think that by slashing to the bone that Gannett has improved the quality of their products? Do you really think that Gannett will re-hire people that they've canned, especially given that many of them are older people they were trying to get rid of anyway??Really???
And then there's my personal favorite - "I love all the employees." I think they are beginning to realize that people other than employees are reading this blog and that communities are paying attention. Duh!
EVERYONE reads the blog. Everyone goes through the same phases of emotions regarding the blog. Here they are:First time reader: wow this blog is kind of nasty toward people and has a lot of rumor mongering.Occassional reader: When something really big is happening at Gannett, I can count on someone leaking it to the blog so I'm reading it. Corporate even uses it to leak official memos, that is clear now.Frequent reader: I'm getting addicted to the blog. Yeah, it sometimes has ramblings of nonsense but in between the gibberish, lie mountains of the truth.Regular reader: I have to go to the blog everyday. At least every other day. I've come to realize that it's usually right. Obsessive reader: I'm on it every hour to see if I'll still have my job next week. I'm on it every hour to see if my lame manager has been fired yet. I'm on it every hour to see how much my stock portfolio has diminished. I'm on it every hour to feel relief that I'm not alone in all this madness.
Ok.... so today was the day that the blog was full of jokes. Rehiring laid off workers...yeah right. The management cares about the employees...yeah right. You are treated like professionals at the Courier Post...yeah right. Tell another joke. And this time make it a good one.
Dear 3:45 -- that mentality extends across the hall in Tucson from the empty newsroom of the Tucson Citizen to the Daily Starm which still sends 50 percent of its revenues over to Gannett. They've promoted some real dead wood. Based largely on .. personal relationships. IYKWIM
Warren Buffett said newspapers are nuts for giving away their content online. He wants newspapers to charge. All the "experts" here say that philosophy is wrong. What say you folks?
I say Gannett should stick with what it has always done best: local journalism, put out a great product and then ask people to pay for it.The criticism comes because Gannett needed money to chase all the non-strategic digital marketing companies and other non-aligned iniatives and pillaged its newsrooms and talent, resulting in dimenished content.Now Gannett wants its readers to pay for the crap that is left after layoffs, furloughs, no raises, and a beaten down newsroom.Gannett is too late.....unless they reinvest in their newsrooms.PS: I'm not even a journalist and I see this as truth.
Another genius that thinks digital is a fad. And we wonder why we can't change faster.
Our sites need to be easy to navigate and full of great content. Breaking news and journalism, real journalism, not just sound bites from the local TV stations.People would pay for that.
7:17 nobody said digital was a fad. Creating great newsrooms is about our websites and our TV stations. You obviously didn't read the post.Stop being so defensive. Digital is not God. It's just another way to deliver content...but if you want people to pay for the web (after it's been free all this time) you better have something worth paying for.Go back now and tweet some W00ts and keep rockin!!
3:32 Try out Alexa for free web metrics and site rankings. It is not super detailed, but it does give a ranking and shows trends.
Nowhere is mediocrity more embraced than usa today, where editors are treated like tenured professors. god help any newbie who comes in without a torch to rid the place of tired, dilusional "professional" editors whose last taste of reporting or writing (if at all) came in a decade ago or longer. The list starts at the top and cuts through every department.
So what happens to the economic model when many readers discover that all they need is a local library card to access the newspaper databases at their local library? And is there something with the Facebook interface that resets comments at midnight? Or is the local paper here just set to wipe them out? It sure ends some of the very few discussions dead in their tracks.
6:51 Newspapers have been giving away their content for years and making the dough on ads. Subscriptions rates did nothing more than cover the cost of producing the paper and its delivery. Net to the bottom line at the paper? Essentially $0. But! having a hard copy of the paper gave the perception of value to both readers and advertisers. That perception is gone.
6:51 have you ever done one day of analysis on how much print ads cost compared to digital?They don't call it digital dimes and print dollars for nothing.Digital rates and revenue are peanuts. In fact, right now its only 18-20 percent of all revenue at Gannett.So even with newspapers "dying" , print ads still bring in far more revenue than digital can dream.Get some knowledge of the industry if you are going to attempt to debate.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I post here so infrequently, it took me a moment to remember how. But I read the blog with a frequency that depends on what gannett is up to that particular quarter. And after reading the last 24 hours worth of posts, I'm pleasantly surprised at the number of intelligent posts of late, oddly balanced by the number of deletions. I worked in two gannett newsrooms -- asheville and greenville -- for almost 13 of my 20-year career in journalism. I was among the 700 massacred 06.11. In between greenville-area stints, I worked Roy KR at The Sun News -- the best paper I ever worked for. That having been said, here are a few of my thoughts:*gannett has adopted a policy of no-risk reporting. I was told straight up by an editor above me at The News that corporate policy was not to engage in journalism that could provoke lawsuits. That's the fundamental weakness of the company: it doesn't care about journalism. That alone will kill gannett, if not print journalism.*it's obvious the company represents little more than a cash feeding trough to the corporate swine in Virginia. No one is willing to leave one filthy dime in the bottom of the trough.*gannett has been an industry leader in web reductions over the last two decades. Shrinking the physical product decreased the need for copy. To further save paper, entire editions were cut, again, fewer journalists are needed and corporate reaps multimillion-dollar benefits -- for the few. This content could have been shifted to the new, expansive internet, but there was no immense immediate profit.*re. The obvious management shill who posted the "peace and love and gannett will hire everyone back as soon as as god comes down and makes everything right again," I wonder if defending gannett pays well. Oh, and hire me back? Sorry, I was fortunate enough to get picked up by a fortune 350 company.To conclude, I hate it for all the friends I left behind, but journalism is changing, maybe even going away -- I don't know. But what's worse is gannett does not care. Take the buyout. Get out any way you can.
I'm afraid that it's too late for a paywall to work for community newspapers. That's not because I'm a technological Luddite. Gannett has so gutted its most dependable asset - local news - that it's naive to think that a paywall will be successful. In my community the local paper has nothing that I can't get from local TV or radio. What made the local paper work was that it had local news, featured local ads and was delivered by local school kids (never underestimate the power of the neighborhood). Now it's ice milk, instead of ice cream; it's I Can't Believe It's Not Butter, instead of butter; it's mystery meat, instead of meat; it's a low-calorie, generic substitute for the real thing.The paywall won't work unless Gannett goes back to offering something of real substance. I have my doubts.
I was going to post a comment, but I'm still not sure this blog is platform perfect for what I need to say, so I'll get back to you.
Temp pub named in Louisville
Strange: Randi Austin, regional HR chief, has been named interim publisher in Louisville, a reader tells me. Why can't they find a permanent replacement for Arnie Garson?
@8:09 p.m. The "dilusional" professional editors you refer to are the ones who keep you grade-inflated, pampered, catered-to-your-whole-lives, helicopter-parented children from humiliating USAT every day by making sure that words like "dilusional" don't sit on prominent places on usatoday.com for too long. You're welcome
Gracia just sent out an email trumpeting her plans for growth. I so want to email her back and ask how in the hell we are supposed to grow when we're about to cut 20 more percent out of our newsroom via buyouts. Doesn't compute, if you ask me.
So, do it!
I used to work with Jodi and know for a fact that her trip last year to Hawaii was for vacation, on her own dime, and in fact the first time in years she actually took one. Jodi is the last person you should be taking to task for wasting company money. Many of the conferences she attended or spoke at over the past few years she paid for out of her own pocket. If you are going to mention people by name here in these comments, get your facts straight… Jim you shouldn't let these slurs stand. They are flat out lies.
12:06 PM Your math is flawed. 20% from this last buyout Really? Plus if you want to reply, then reply and stop being a baby about it. Be respectful but ask the question.
All these successful paywalls seem to be at dailies or periodicals that have wealthy educated bases and wide reaches. The Economist, FT, WSJ, NYTimes are in a different division. Probably one up from USAToday and two or three up from most of the locals.
Jodi Gersh did a good job defending herself using a brilliant social media tactic: posting her SXSW experience onto her own blog.She proved she fully understands social media.
@12:31: Quite whining. 1. She's a de facto public figure in this forum, and she's being treated as such. There are no slurs, just questions.2. She's a big girl. She can stand up for herself and take a few slings and arrows, I'm sure.3. She's quite well paid to make up for all the abuse she suffers through.
I think referring to her as a "girl" says all we need to know about you. How does one spell misogynist?
Sorry -- *quit* whining. Not "quite whining"
@ 12:45 -- exactly right. Gannett's local sites just don't have the draw of these major players with built-in readership.
Responding to comments on this blog by writing on a different blog shows an incredible lack of social media awareness. I can't believe that Jodi What'sherface is doing this, as attributed above.Someone would be opening up a new conversation with an audience who doesn't understand the motivation behind it or the point you are trying to make, and you're ignoring an audience on the original blog that is interested in having that conversation.That's not any kind of awareness. That's like telling your hairdresser why your husband can suck it when he complains about your cooking.
I think the FT and The Economist should roll out the Deal Chicken. Then they could work on streaming 1st appearance pictures of crooks and the mommy section.
1:21 Gersh's post about SWSX on her blog is here.However, it's not at all clear that she wrote it to respond to any criticism on this blog.In any case, other bloggers have used that tactic. And it's not entirely without a purpose: It draws readers to their site from this one, and gives them control over the comments readers can post.
Hey 1:54 ... do you really think it would have been better to say "she's a big woman"?Saying "she's a big girl" is calling your comments into question: You're treating her like a child by demanding people be nice to her. I'm saying she's not a girl; she's an adult. She can fend for herself.Man, did I really need to explain that to you? You must be pretty high on the corporate ladder to be that willfully unaware.
Posting her comments on her own blog (jodiontheweb) and then pasting a link on this blog was smart.I don't disagree that accountability for the digital kids' spring break spending at SXSW isn't a viable discussion.Just wanted to give "the girl" credit for at least responding. Even if it was her way.Of course it was in response to this blog. It appeared first thing Monday morning and made mention of how her travels were paid for. She's no dummy.
Whoops: I forgot to include this link to Gersh's SXSW post.
Great blog post
Okay, got it. Gersh is a BIG girl, who drinks lots of water to prevent dehydration. LOL, infact I almost almost ---- my pants, that is so funny! Jodi: I'm glad that you tweeted out (in December) that "Bruce Springsteen will be the Keynote speaker at SXSW." It's a true indication of what your initial intentions were. However, I love the note, I needed a laugh.
Jodi, at standard corporate conferences... The conference organizers will issue a "directory" of which companies are going to be represented. This may save you some time, instead of cold- calling weeks in advance.
3:52 PM, You're right this is a great blog post, very INSIGHTFUL and ENTERTAINING. I think she would have been better off, if she had not tried to defend herself.
I guess nobody remembers when we didn't pay for television huh? And then some went happily and some went screaming, but we all went, to cable. Because TV is all digital now and none of it is free content. If you want something bad enough, you'll pay for it. And if not, the market will sort you out. People want and will pay for news content. But pay who is the question.
I pay happily for the New York Times but Will NEVER pay for the horrible Atlanta Journal. I know they aren't Gannett but that's my local paper.I might pay for the Des Moines Register if I lived there...good paper.It's going to work in markets with good papers and well-educated, wealthier consumers.
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