[Updated at 1:52 p.m. ET with revised estimate of sports department employment at perhaps 90; adds industry reaction.]
Writing last night about one of USA Today's most valuable franchises, Anonymous@7:11 p.m. is looking for feedback: "USA Today Sports newsroom reorg. Everybody, top down, has to apply for jobs. Reorg to be completed in 90 days. Discuss."
Any restructuring would follow the parallel growth of the USAT Sports Media Group, a separate entity launched in January 2010 under President Tom Beusse. Its charge: pull together company-wide sports content from USAT, the 80 U.S. community dailies, Gannett's 23 TV stations, plus speciality sites like HighSchoolSports.net -- then sell it to advertisers as one big roll-up.
Since then, Beusse has been staffing up with a team that now includes its own editor-in-chief, Dave Morgan, hired last fall from Yahoo. Inevitably, that's led to tension between the new players and those under USAT's long-time top sports editor, Monte Lorell, according to one reader: Anonymous@2:41, who wrote on Sunday:
"Sports guys have been completely marginalized by the Beusse team. Why they have two sets of senior management is beyond anyone's guess. Monte Lorell and other senior editors are not included in any planning meetings. Perhaps Tom can pull himself away from Fashion Week parties and clue the Tyson's crew in for a change."
Would this be a case of too many chiefs?
Morgan is content's kingpin
The reorganization directly affects a lot of people: In October 2010, according to this organizational chart I got back then from a reader, the department employed about 90 editors, reporters, bloggers, designers and others. To be sure, the total may have fallen.
Still, adding in the several hundred other sports journalists employed at the 80 community papers, plus the TV stations and other properties, you get a company-wide sports workforce that's mammoth. Suddenly, if reader reports are accurate, GCI has a sports editor czar in Morgan.
Morgan was previously the executive editor of Yahoo North American Audience, the company said in an October news release when he was hired as Sports Media's senior vice president/content and editor-in-chief.
From the release: "He built Yahoo Sports into the number one online sports destination in the country and created a 24/7 news team to support all programming and breaking news. Under Morgan's direction, the Yahoo Sports audience consistently beat those of all other major sports properties, and set a sports web site record with more than 40 million unique visitors during its coverage of the Winter Olympic games in Vancouver."
This much is certain: Corporate has set lofty goals for Beusee & Co. Last week, in a presentation to Wall Street media stock analysts, the company said Sports Media "is expected to be among the top five sports media companies in the country with over $300 million in annual revenue by 2015."
Section's '20-some' assistant editors
On the widely read Sports Journalists forum, reaction includes this comment:
"I'd follow Morgan, no doubt. Huge fan,'' says user 1HPGrad. "You know I interviewed with him. I also interviewed with USAT and still can't get over the managerial flow chart those guys showed me. Would have gone from about one of six or seven assistant sports editors where I was to about one of 20-some at USAT. That was the first thing they showed me. I mentally checked out after five minutes . . . met some nice people, but that interview was the longest day of my career."
Earlier: At Sports Media Group, a vertical or a silo?
Writing last night about one of USA Today's most valuable franchises, Anonymous@7:11 p.m. is looking for feedback: "USA Today Sports newsroom reorg. Everybody, top down, has to apply for jobs. Reorg to be completed in 90 days. Discuss."
Since then, Beusse has been staffing up with a team that now includes its own editor-in-chief, Dave Morgan, hired last fall from Yahoo. Inevitably, that's led to tension between the new players and those under USAT's long-time top sports editor, Monte Lorell, according to one reader: Anonymous@2:41, who wrote on Sunday:
 |
| Beusse |
Would this be a case of too many chiefs?
Morgan is content's kingpin
The reorganization directly affects a lot of people: In October 2010, according to this organizational chart I got back then from a reader, the department employed about 90 editors, reporters, bloggers, designers and others. To be sure, the total may have fallen.
 |
| Morgan |
Morgan was previously the executive editor of Yahoo North American Audience, the company said in an October news release when he was hired as Sports Media's senior vice president/content and editor-in-chief.
From the release: "He built Yahoo Sports into the number one online sports destination in the country and created a 24/7 news team to support all programming and breaking news. Under Morgan's direction, the Yahoo Sports audience consistently beat those of all other major sports properties, and set a sports web site record with more than 40 million unique visitors during its coverage of the Winter Olympic games in Vancouver."
This much is certain: Corporate has set lofty goals for Beusee & Co. Last week, in a presentation to Wall Street media stock analysts, the company said Sports Media "is expected to be among the top five sports media companies in the country with over $300 million in annual revenue by 2015."
Section's '20-some' assistant editors
On the widely read Sports Journalists forum, reaction includes this comment:
Earlier: At Sports Media Group, a vertical or a silo?
What a fucking disaster. I feel for Monte and the rest of the crew.
ReplyDeleteAnd this is how USAT got here. The group heard about a competitive structure designed to compete in the digital universe and this last poster calls it a disaster. The disaster is the throw back product we print today that no on advertisers want to utilize to place their ads. It's sad how posters like this have no clue that they've failed to compete in the last five years.
ReplyDeleteWow, it didnt take long for the corporate shill to try to spin this disaster.
ReplyDeleteSo absolutely nothing has happened and it's a "disaster. USAT is failing the way it works now . Someone tries to change things and you immediately call it a disaster. Call it what you want but by doing the EXACT same thing for 30 years you've ruined a once great product. But you're right, let's keep doing it your way and just bury it in five years. Get your head out of the sand for peers sake!
DeleteIn the new structure, will Lorell and the other editors still report to Susan Weiss -- or whoever gets that job permanently? Or will they now report to Dave Morgan?
ReplyDeleteEveryone in sports reports to Dave Morgan. It's a separate company. Sports is on its own.
DeleteUtilize THIS, 9:41. $300 million in revenue will never happen. Not enven close to that number, unless you finagle how that number is arrived at.
ReplyDeleteYour smart competitive structure has resulted in plenty of sexist cheerleader galleries. Nice what you are doing for a sports brand that's flourished for its content since you were in grade school.
Beusse is nothing more than a glorified Hunke. All show.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Hunke couldn't tie this guys shoes. This is so USAT. Can't wait until someone says the "Founders" are upset. Ooops I just did.
DeleteBefore everyone goes off and running with yet another Gannett Blog rumor, is there proof this is happening? Some anonymous person making a claim is not proof. I don't care if Jim says this is a trusted source -- we've heard that before.
ReplyDeleteUntil there is actual proof, we should assume this is yet another fantasy.
Actually it's not a fantasy, it's happening. It happened at 4pm today. And it's great. A few sad sacks will whine but it's about time someone did something, Funny neither Hunke or Ellwood were there.
Delete10:10 is referring to Dave Morgan, the editor in chief of USAT Sports Media Group.
ReplyDeleteHow can sports be a separate company, on its own, when there's still a print sports section to fill five days a week?
Like it or not, the print section will ALWAYS have priority over anything digital for one simple reason: You can't just fill it up with wire copy, house ads, and blank white space. Someone has to have final responsibility for making sure there's enough print copy, photos and graphics in the works every day to fill that sucker.
And what about sports coverage in the rest of the paper -- like Page One. What about the Page One Cover story schedule?
For example, when there's big sports news, who has the final say over whether it warrants a Cover story -- Morgan or Weiss? Who has the final say over whether it must run tomorrow -- or next week?
Wow so in your opinion the print section will "always" have priority over anything g digital. Wow that clearly demonstrates two thinks: You have no insight what do ever about the American and international sports fan and you have no clue what advertises feel about advertising in print sports pages.
DeleteYour statement is the height of ignorance. You just exposed yourself as a fraud.
Jim take a deep breath. Morgan controls anything sports, period. If Weiss wants to put something from sports on A1 she can. But if it impacts the sports section in print or the web it's Morgan. Plus he is responsible for every other sports publication in print and online. It's a whole new organization. It's different but it's not difficult to understand. Please don't be one of those dinosaurs that is afraid of something new. Trust me, the old way has failed pure and simple.
DeleteThere goes the neighborhood. I really hope these people know what they were doing. Will they need more outside consultants to tell them what our target audiences are, or just report back in a year and tell us what we already know?
ReplyDeleteJim, you are exactly right. And these geniuses do not care about the print product. They do not care about quality content. All they want is cheap clicks and cheaper workers.
ReplyDeleteHow will the sports section get published? Who knows, but you can bet Mr. Buesse really doesn't care, nor apparently does Mr. Hunke.
What a way to treat people, and a product that is Gannett's ONLY national brand.
This is happening, to the doubting poster.
Fewer people will be rehired, and almost certainly at lower salaries. This, while GCI spends hundreds of millions to buy back stock to boost the options held by the executives.
You digital cheerleaders, enjoy your paperless future. You folks will be nothing when the paper stops publishing.
The same folks burying their heads in the sand whining about the focus on digital vs print are the same folks who never actually subscribed to the paper ("I read it at work") and also refuse to pay for web content.
DeleteI have no problem moving the founders. But can't it be done with a shred of human decency? The wash post is offering a buyout to a few dozen people and 3.25 weeks of severance for each year worked.
ReplyDeleteAfter what this company just promised to shareholders and the massively inappropriate payout to chief flounderer Craig dubow, long term employees deserve better.
From a demographic/marketing perspective (hi, Maryam!), why does a sports network stand a better chance than the now-defunct moms network?
ReplyDeleteAren't mothers are more desirable demo for advertisers?
What's the target audience for the sports network, which will have A LOT of high school sports coverage if it relies too much on the community dailies?
11:27 Sadly, there is no human decency in corporate America.
ReplyDeleteCant wait for this to happen in other depts.i guess the signs will be gratuitous staff memos like we got from Ellwood and Martore in the past week.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't about resistance to change. Of course Sports needs to change and evolve, and even be shaken up.
ReplyDeleteBut this is about an entire department being told to reapply for their jobs. It is needlessly brutal, ugly, heart breaking and insulting.
The gains from restructuring the department will be set back for years because of this ham-fisted look-how-tough-we-are approach.
And how would you handle it?
DeleteYou treat people with decency and respect. That's how you would want to be treated, right Tom?
ReplyDeleteThe latest move by a completely classless organization.
Will GCI ever admit that while HSS in theory may have been a wonderful idea, the execution was an unmitigated disaster? So much so, that the executives in charge of the project have already been reassigned, including one exec who seems to be a "black cloud". PL must known where the bodies are hidden though, he keeps getting reassigned instead of sent home.
ReplyDeleteHighSchoolSports.net is a disaster; cumbersome and undependable are some of the kinder assessments that come to mind.
ReplyDeleteThe "debut night of HSS on a high school football Friday night and it was a complete debacle. That site took FOREVER to load and it completely slowed down the USAT prep pages and the prep pages of the Gannett community papers (Detroit Free Press, Indy Star, etc.).
ReplyDeleteAs for this move, I can't say I'm surprised. It's been a print vs. online mentality for many years with plenty of print people resistant to change. The fact with journalism today is this: If you don't evolve, you're history. The internet is no longer a toy, it's a necessity--there are still plenty of people on that second floor who will never accept that nor want to deal with it.
10:10
ReplyDeleteYes, PL has been bounced around quite a bit (Peter principle). For many years his 'guardian angel' has been JW ... who for some reason still has considerable pull in the company.
3:53 To clarify, I'm not anti-digital; far from it.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, I really, really like the additional options in video and social media. Exhibit A: Look who started Gannett Blog.
My point is one of logistics: At the end of the day, USAT can't run a blank print sports section. As the day's workflow is planned, Morgan can't favor digital over print if it means there isn't enough content to fill an 8-, 10-, 12- or more page section. Not as long as there's one staff to produce what amounts to two editions a day: One analog, the other digital.
There will come a point on many days when someone -- an editor with overall responsibility for print -- will have to say to Morgan: We've got to cut back on video production today, or that big interactive graphic for the tablet app, or we're going to need to fill a full page with house ads.
This is reality: Digital can expand or contract infinitely to accommodate the day's news; print, on the other hand, cannot. The press requires balanced sections; Morgan can't just order the next day's section be reduced to 11.75 pages from 14, just because his department is coming up short on copy -- not when it's being matched to a 14-page Life section.
Newspapers are slaves to the press, and so long as print is the No. 1 source of revenue -- and that's most certainly USAT's case -- management can't simply relegate print to also-ran status.
Certainly, the day will come when print goes away for good. But it won't be this year or next.
MorgAn is charged with content for both print and digital. What don't you get?
DeleteWestchester and others have gone thru the "all news staff" reapplying for jobs with many at lower salaries than before. Why should USAT Sports be exempt of not doing that.
ReplyDeleteIt's not change that most reasonable people object to. It's the way USAT implements change that is so upsetting and usually counterproductive.
ReplyDeleteThere hasn't been decency at USAT in quite some time. Well thought-out ideas are rare. USAT rolls out big plans but never seems to have all its ducks in a row before doing so. That just pisses people. Destroys confidence that the changes will be for the best.
Of course, this all points to one thing: USAT's leadership has simply been terrible. It's been that way for many years. The remnants of poor leadership in the distant past are why there is so much crap going on even today. The people in charge back in the day empowered some god-awful managers -- managers (and some staffers) who weren't a threat, who were liars and cheats, and still are. Those managers remain and are in way over their heads. Their decisions, their handy work, their very existence has created toxic pockets spread out everywhere, including sports.
USAT is a mess. The mess didn't begin with this news about sports or with the downsizing of the staff. The seeds were planted a long time ago by some of the most over-paid, corrupt human beings to ever work at a newspaper. Their past decisions impact everything that goes on here today. Unfortunately, the new leaders and new directives are only putting a new spin on old failed initiatives.
Cynism runs deep because history has proven that USAT is broken -- perhaps beyond repair. The recent ruthlessness combined with a general incompetency has taken away a lot of the hope and energy that the paper was founded on. Good people can only be humiliated for so long before saying adios to this sinking ship.
12:34 I would not further reduce the size of the editorial staff, while simultaneously trying to produce a bigger digital product.
ReplyDeleteThat's not how you compete with technology start-ups during early-stage development. They staff up, not down.
They invest in staff, R&D and acquisitions; they don't cut back to fund even bigger dividends for shareholders.
12:36 I fully understand Morgan is now in charge. That's the news here, according to you and others: Monte Lorrell & Co. have been sidelined -- and some may even be out of work in 90 days.
An undetermined number of other staffers may not make the cut, either, if they are reapplying for a smaller pool of jobs if the staff is being reduced in size -- or a job pool that's been redefined such that they aren't qualified or can't afford to work for substantially lower wages.
This is an even bigger deal if this plan -- zero-basing employment, and asking everyone to reapply for work -- is extended to the other three USAT editorial sections: News, Money and Life.
It's not a smaller pool of jobs. Why are you saying that. There are current and new jobs. Beusse said ateast three times this is NOT an expense cut. They are creating a new multi platform company. It's not a newspaper only nor is it a digital only company. Folks have to posses the skills necessary to contribute in the new company. That is what he said. It's. OT about saving money
DeleteTop 5 Sports Media Companies, really?
ReplyDeleteWow, Debow did a job on the directors' heads. What were they smokin'?
Well, I guess if you want to be big, you have to dream big.
Newsflash: It ain't gonna happen. That territory is firmly staked out with players who do a pretty good job. Many of them taking the former USA Today sports model (content) that made it so well-respected.
Gannett didn't capitalize on this opportunity when the field was more fertile and it's too late to the game now -- much like it was too late to the tech game.
This pie-in-the-sky goal is a fantasy. It's sad to see people squirm and flap their arms in circles.
Readers: Worry not who the captain is; so long at they embark on this mission they'll be gone in a few years anyway and there will be a new captain.
So what do I suggest you ask?
USA Today,sports media, et all must plow new territory, stake out new ground -- an area where they set the standards and are the pioneers in order to really transform the company. Just jumping in the current pool, only stinks it up more.
I know it's easier and less financially risky to acquire and join a fragmented market. But I argue that in a fragmented market in which you're not even a serious contender or so far behind the 8-nall, you have no choice but to carve a new path. That is innovation at its core.
Good luck to those still left at the paper.
Funny you criticized everything but you suggested nothing. Stake out new territory. What specific territory would you stake out. How a out five specific examples?
Delete1:38 Please re-read my comment: I said "if" there's a smaller pool of jobs.
ReplyDelete12:34 notes that The Journal News in Westchester, N.Y., asked its newsroom to reapply for jobs in summer 2009 during a round of Gannett-wide layoffs.
ReplyDeleteDitto for Florida Today in Brevard, which used the same process last August as it reduced the size of it newsroom.
You can be sure there will be fewer and lower-paying jobs for journalists, despite what Beusse and Morgan are posting here.
ReplyDeleteYou sir are a liar. Let's talk in three months. It's NOT about saving money.
DeleteThis meeting was called intentionally knowing Monte would be away on vacation.
ReplyDeleteThe head of the sports department, Monte Lorell, wasn't there?!
ReplyDeleteWas that his choice -- or did he get ambushed by Beusse and Morgan?
He was sitting up front. Where are you getting this BS information?
DeleteTruth be told, Monte takes a lot of vacations.
ReplyDeleteHow do Mark Pesavento and Gerry Ahern fit into all this? Morgan names these two Yahoo guys to content jobs in late November.
ReplyDeleteBeusse is a smart exec. Don't bet against him.
ReplyDeleteA couple things I'd like to add.
ReplyDeleteI am a sports reporter.
I'm stoked that Gerry Ahern is part of this organization. He's an A player.
I disagree with the sentiment that it's "too late" for Gannett to get its sports things in order. No way. GCI still employs a bunch of top-tier beat guys and columnists who churn out great, top-tier beat work and features and scoops.
There is work to be done, but the SMG can be a major player in the world of digital sports coverage.
Still not sure if I'm willing to bet my career on it. I have a backup plan ... just in case.
Too much negativity. Kick ass and you'll be OK -- either with GCI or elsewhere.
Amen brother. If everyone goes into their interview that way most would stay.
DeleteA USAT Sports employee here, and the newsroom reshuffle is not at all surprising. To clarify: all Sports edit rolls up to Morgan. That means Monte and ditto for Monte's old team of deputy editors. It's full-steam ahead for Morgan, Pesavento, and Ahern. They're smart guys, sure, and leading a digital-first charge....but, always sad to see long-term leaders not being asked to lead anymore. Yes, print product still exists...and carries the heavier load of revenue expectation. 'Digital-first' means, in one example, not holding back a story to run it in print 1st. If it's ready and available, up online it goes. More focus on building out the digital product as a must-read for sports fans (still a way to go, wonder if re-launch will help). No similar focus on making print section a must-read, for sure. There really shouldn't be any issue with that. But, it's all in the way it's done...lots of new names in new Sports group, and with fancy titles and solid sports backgrounds, but really hard to accept that so few of the USAT-experienced ones are included for at least a token minimum of value of opinion. Of course, some may say the old-timers are part of the problem which now needs Beusse's fixing, but I can't name anyone with more than a couple years of USAT Sports experience being included in today's leadership. That is sad.
ReplyDeleteApparently, Buesse knows something about being escorted out of the building.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.rbr.com/radio/rbr_first_major_shakeup_at_ww1_buesse_has_left_the_building.html
@Arazi: Were that the case! Still begs the question -- why all the star worship, hotties and cheerleaders?
ReplyDeleteIf you relied on USA Today you wouldn't have known about the new Minnesota Vikings stadium, plans for which were announced this week.
Beusse is a salesman. You would think with that background and prior leadership as the captain of his college soccer team, he would know a thing or two about teamwork and espritmde corps.
ReplyDeleteWhen you start a staff meeting by telling us the next 10 minutes are more important than the past 30 years, it makes me think you'll step over anyone to get ahead. If it isn't about saving money, you should have offered your people buyouts.
You're handling of staff over the next 10 days will set the tone for your professional career for the next 20 years. Do the right thing. These are people who have put in hard work and sweat and have made big sacifrices for the newsroom you are about to blow up.
See here is what I find confusing. He continuously told the gathering how much he appreciated and admired their work. He then went on to say things had to change and evolve. So are you against change? Do you think things are great the way they are? He was brought here to build a whole new product because the existing one is on life support. What are you going to do to make things better?
DeleteDid anyone else at the meeting hear Beusee say, "the next 10 minutes are more important than the past 30?"
ReplyDeleteDon't get your pants in an uproar. He was saying that we have a proud history but he doesn't want folks to fixate on the past. He wants them totally focused on the future. It wasn't a slam. Get the whole story before you go off half cocked
DeleteI had to ask someone to repeat it because it seemee too bizarre. But yea he said it. It was down hill from there.the guy makes his own koolmaid I just wish he had spent more time in the newsroom before killing careers of people he never met.
ReplyDeleteHe hasn't done anything yet but tell you things are going to change. Instead of getting excited about the one true innovative division in the company you e already chosen to reject it a d dig your feet in. This is the negative attitude he was talking about. Our paper is faili g but rather than do something about it you would rather reject it. And we wonder hiw we got to this point.
DeleteKilling careers is Beusse's mantra (when his own career isn't getting trampled).
ReplyDeleteFrom MIN: Former Westwood One chief Tom Beusse charts a new course. His Westwood One chief executive contract will pay him through December 2010, but Beusse has moved on. “I am consulting several private equity and venture capital firms,” he tells Media Industry Newsletter. His list of clients includes Veronis Suhler Stevenson, which could provide Beusse capital to fuel his next career move. He says, “I am seeking to acquire vibrant media brands.” After just ten months on the job with Westwood One, the former magazine executive left last October as part of a management shake-up. Looking back, Beusse tells MIN, “We were gaining real traction when macro market conditions made it difficult to invest in cross-platform development and the primary focus became refinancing the debt in an increasingly difficult market.”
Was Beusse's sexual harrassment lawsuit while at Rodale ever settled?
ReplyDeletewww.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/04d0153p.pdf
Amazing what you find out about Mr. Beusse when you do a little google work. Another "class act" brought to USAT by our class actor David L. Hunke.
ReplyDeletehttp://google.brand.edgar-online.com/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingHTML1?ID=6208920&SessionID=ae4HHWfPE63d0P7
I think Beusse if the only one in senior management that actually know what the hell he's doing. He's the only one who seems to get the fact that as a DIGITALLY FOCUSED company we should be hiring DIGITAL people rather than TV people. That's just good sense. Having said that, I hope he handles whatever change is coming with dignity and class. If he does, he will once again separate himself from the management rif raf currently employed at USAT.
ReplyDeleteIsn't it a whole lot smarter to have hundreds of journalists nationwide providing content to USAT as well as local papers, rather than a disjoined bunch who don't work together? Why do 20 Gannett journalists need to be at, say, the Superbowl or Daytona, when a strategically placed 5 or 6 can do a better job. It's a matter of using the Brand and the Company to its best. There are great journalists here, so they are using them. Oh, there won't be as many hangers on at big events, but those there will be rocking and socking. Providing great coverage at significantly lower cost in print and on the web.
ReplyDeleteExcellent point 8:55 a.m.
ReplyDeleteIt always perplexed me when our mid-size paper sports guy went to the Masters, spending thousands of bucks, when Gannett already had on the job there. Same thing for the Indy 500. While it was a nice perk, I guess, what's the point if you aren't localizing something that is a national event. Never did figure that out. It's like sending a beat reporter to the Super Tuesday states becaues politics is important. What are they going to learn that the people already there aren't going to be doing?
8:55, most content coming in from the vast empire still has to be edited. If there are feeds, someone has to sling it together. That either takes an experienced reporter or editor to do the write through. You need a copy editor or web person to slap it up on the web. If you run it in print, you need someone to get it on the page.
ReplyDeleteWho will do this? Perhaps the next 10 minutes would be an important time to ponder this, unless magic elves are among Tom's incoming hires.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteLike other posters here, I have a problem with beusses's dsmissive, smug attitude. This guy's track record has not been great for some time.
ReplyDeleteRather than just be another duplictiois corporate hack, he should have devised a better way to turn over staff than making everyone reapply for jobs. I hope one day he or a loved one is put in a similar position.
Just call them what they really are. Layoffs.
To 8:55am and 10:38am, there has to be a balance between national and local coverage. Having an Indy Star writer report on Indy 500 - from a local level, on angles that matter to a local audience is important. So is having a national perspective, using USAT. And it makes sense to include some of that Indy coverage in national, to add local flavor perspective. But, to what extent does it make sense to have AZ or Detroit pick up Indy or national? To some extent, sure....i.e. cost-savings in not sending extra people....but, isn't there a value to having some sort of Detroit perspective in a Detroit paper? If not, why am I buying a Detroit paper if all it has in it is USAT content? I certainly get it...newspaper revenue down, so need to figure out how to share resources, but hopefully in a way that doesn't diminish local power. I don't see that level of sensitivity in the new leadership, but fingers crossed.
ReplyDeleteNot worth crossing fingers for the USAT Sports newsroom....believe me, Beusse and Morgan are cleaning house according to their vision, and nothing will stop that. Same old corporate story as anywhere that gets a new management team. You're a believer, or you're not - and I'm guessing that Beusse et al have already decided rightly or wrongly that the vast majority of existing Sports employees are in the non-believer camp, so the purging will continue. Does it suck? yes Is it a fair way to treat long-timers who have emotional investment in this place? no Will it happen anyway? of course
Worked here for 2.5 years and got caught up in the big layoff at the end of 2009. There are some great people at USAT but the biggest problem is that it's top-heavy with paper-first folks. The place is shackled by the newspaper being a 5-day a week endeavor. It has probably been an easier transition at "true" dailies. Try getting a sports copy editor to start working weekends once per month...lots of luck.
ReplyDeleteI'll be sad to see some friends let go but I'm curious to see how the organization will improve as a result of this missive.
This is just another opportunity to suck out any remaining dollars from the franchise and leave the stock holders holding the bag.
ReplyDeleteWho will be doing the reapply interviews?
ReplyDelete