. . . they've replaced the Digital Technology Committee* with the new Transformation Committee, which will "assist the board of directors in fulfilling its oversight responsibilities relating to the company’s strategic plan and company initiatives in support of its strategic plan," according to the new annual report to U.S. securities regulators.
(* The old technology committee’s duties included reviewing Gannett's digital strategy, operational plans and initiatives.)
(* The old technology committee’s duties included reviewing Gannett's digital strategy, operational plans and initiatives.)
Same empty suits, different group name?
ReplyDeleteGeniuses.
ReplyDeleteTime to break out the Transformers art again, Jim!
ReplyDeleteHope this transformation goes better than USAT's.
ReplyDeleteHardly a transformative move for a company that touts itself as the one leading “the transformation of the media and marketing solutions industries.” More so, for those who are well familiar with Thomson Newspapers’ “Transformation Now” efforts, cira 2000.
ReplyDeleteThomson’s truly was transformative. Gannett’s efforts to date not so much as its leadership ( including a CMO with a skill set that’s arguably cost this company more than its helped) seems to have just learned of one of its greatest strengths, it’s “Hometown Advantage.”
Same whore, different dress.
ReplyDelete10:30 am -- how was Thomson so transformative?
ReplyDeleteFrom the same people who brought you Newsgate!
ReplyDeleteJim, do you know how much board members get paid for their "service" to Gannett?
ReplyDeleteWhere to begin 12:15…
ReplyDeleteThomson's technological prowess and related, integrative actions at that time actually led (plethora of white papers…Extend the Reach marketing tools, self-publishing web tools, etc.). It created strategic marketing groups, i.e. centralization of functions and actually encouraged investment in non-core revenue generating activities at that SMG level too. It implemented corporate-wide facilitator programs that ultimately involved and engaged employees at all levels in open discussions with management and the decision making process (Gannett wouldn’t dare such collaboration even today); etc., -- all well more than a decade ahead of Gannett. Spinning off newspapers to lead in financial and other informational areas, including Reuters was the ultimate transformation.
Look, Thomson was by no means perfect – or likeable in many ways. However, after attending my first Gannett-wide publishers conference in the mid OO’s at Tyson’s it was clear Thomson was well ahead in many areas, including in its recognition of the need to transform into a more open, marketing and communications company, a transformative move it undertook well before Gannett and they profited from it.
Gannett was too happy with its robust profits to ever dare even an honest discussion. An economic downturn is what’s forcing it all today. Yet, look how its responded? Poorly and slow.
Worse yet, its using many of the same suits (and new ones, like the CMO with arguably the wrong skill sets and knowledge) who continue to employ the same top-down management style all of which exacerbated this company’s problems in the first place.
For details on director compensation in 2010, see the tables on Page 55 and 56 of this document..
ReplyDeleteThe newest figures, for 2011, should be released any day now with the next proxy report to shareholders.
Thanks, Jim! Here's a quick summary for those who don't wish to click over...this is nice work if you can get it!
ReplyDeleteThe compensation year for directors begins at each Annual Meeting of shareholders and ends at the following Annual Meeting of shareholders. For this period, the Company paid its directors the following:
an annual retainer fee of $45,000;
an additional retainer fee of $15,000 to committee chairs and an additional retainer fee of $25,000 to the presiding director;
$2,000 for each Board meeting attended;
$1,000 for each committee meeting attended;
a long-term award, consisting of either 2,000 restricted shares or 8,000 SOs, granted on the first day of the compensation year;
travel accident insurance of $1,000,000; and
a match from the Gannett Foundation of charitable gifts made by directors up to a maximum of $10,000 each year.
Where to begin 12:15…
ReplyDeleteThomson’s technological prowess and related, integrative actions actually led (plethora of white papers…Extend the Reach marketing tools, self-publishing web tools, etc.). It created strategic marketing groups, i.e. centralization of functions and actually encouraged investment in non-core revenue generating activities at that SMG level too. It implemented company-wide facilitator programs that ultimately involved and engaged employees at all levels in open discussions with management and the decision making process (Gannett wouldn’t dare such collaboration even today); etc., -- all well more than a decade ahead of Gannett. Spinning off newspapers to lead in financial and other informational areas, including Reuters was the ultimate transformation.
Look, Thomson was by no means perfect – or likeable in many ways. However, after attending my first Gannett-wide publishers conference in the mid OO’s at Tyson’s it was clear Thomson was well ahead in many areas, including in its recognition of the need to transform into a more open, marketing and communications company, a transformative move it undertook well before Gannett and they profited from it.
Gannett was too happy with its robust profits to ever dare even an honest discussion. An economic downturn is what’s forcing it all today. Yet, look how its responded? Poorly and slow.
Worse yet, its using many of the same suits (and new ones, like the CMO with arguably the wrong skill sets and knowledge) who continue to employ the same top-down management style all of which exacerbated this company’s problems in the first place.
Case in point - when we were bought by Gannett the suits were utterly flummoxed that sister papers 50 miles away or less would cross sell to different markets and apply the revenue appropriately. The entire infrastructure was ditched, along with all that revenue - and instead we started sending three reps into the same advertiser to get the same dollars as before.
ReplyDeleteIt took FOUR YEARS for somebody to realize that this was stupid.
We thought when the Thomsons wanted to get out of the family business we'd be joining a professional, focused newspaper company. Ten years later, all we can really say is at least we're not one of the bankrupt newspaper companies.
Gannett is well known for hiring and promoting those with the wrong skill sets. the problem is it never corrects its mistakes.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking empty suits, what have you accomplished today Maryam Banikarim?
ReplyDelete