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.)
Friday, September 21, 2012
41 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)
The good news is, if you still have a job in publishing: You're faster than the bear. Other than that . . .
ReplyDeleteWhile plenty of industries have shrunk over the last couple of years, few have been hit as badly as newspaper publishing, which was already contracting before the economic downturn began. Since then, economic woes have simply reinforced the long-term trend.
According to the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, total employment in the newspaper publishing industry has plunged from 414,000 in 2001 to 246,020 in 2011, equaling a 40.6% drop in 10 years. The 2011 figure is down 5% from 258,950 in 2010 and 20.4% from 309,000 in 2009.
While most newspaper publishers have done their best to keep newsroom numbers up, sweeping layoffs have inevitably affected editorial staff.
Separate figures from the American Society of Newspaper Editors indicate that total newsroom employment has shrunk from 56,400 in 2001 to 40,566 in 2012, for a 28.1% decline in a little over a decade. The 2012 figure is down 2.5% from 41,609 in 2011.
Some newspaper publishers have experienced bigger percentage declines than others.
At the end of 2011, Gannett Co. had 31,000 employees, down 40% from 51,500 total employees at the end of 2001. Over the same period the number of employees at its U.S. publishing division shrank 47% from 39,400 to 20,900. McClatchy Co.’s total workforce has declined 53.5% from 16,791 in 2006, following its acquisition of Knight Ridder, to 7,800 at the end of 2011.
The New York Times Company had 7,273 employees at the end of 2011, down 40% from 12,050 at the end of 2001.
It’s not news that the industry is under tremendous financial pressure. The Newspaper Association of America reports that total advertising revenues plunged from $49.3 billion in 2006 to $23.9 billion in 2011 -- a 51.5% drop in five years.
Read more: http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/183378/newspaper-jobs-shrink-40-in-10-years.html#ixzz2765KkOZ1
YO, GRACIA -- CHECK ANDROID SITE
ReplyDeleteEver since the "new" logo launched, the Android USAT app has been erratic.
Now, it is LOCKED-out. Zip. Nothing.
Lame, madam. Lame.
Onto to m.usatoday.com
BTW: writers in fear, they rarely produce anything engaging. Wednesday's paper was above-average dull. No readers -- no advertising. Duh.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteHere's an edited version of 10:19's comment:
ReplyDeleteIf the Affordable Care Act of 2010 -- often known as Obamacare -- doesn't work as intended, companies including Gannett will suffer with even more taxes than the extra they’ll have to start paying next year.
All of which means less hiring, less spending and less ads from them, something a clear majority of them will admit if anyone dares ask. Hence, Gannett should enjoy the $100 million in extra profits from subscription increases as they’ll need it offset coming ad losses.
Not exactly Jim as the intent was to pick-up on the previous day's post about words, phrases and even topics you cut…so here’s a slightly tweaked revision:
ReplyDeleteSpiking the term that most use to refer to Obama’s signature health care act is questionable as it’s widely-known and cited by that name, even by major media outlets and Obama. In fact, it’s likely best to call it that as citing ACA, the Affordable Care Act to many, is misleading as the CBO projects it will cost more than $1 trillion than the revenues it expects to collect.
A fact, that barely gets any newshole (including your own cut of it from my 10:19 post which is hardly a partisian swipe...again, those costs are a fact and strengthen my following points) when it should as businesses who support this industry, particularly Gannett, know exactly where that additional money to pay for it will come…even more taxes than the extra they’ll have to start paying next year.
All of which means less hiring, less spending and less ads from them, something a clear majority of them will admit if anyone dares ask. Hence, Gannett should enjoy the $100 million in extra profits from subscription increases as they’ll need it offset coming ad losses.
What in hell is going on inside the crystal palace. Doors slamming and everybody seems to be in hiding. Now what?
ReplyDelete11:13, earnings due at month's end. Good frakin' luck.
ReplyDelete11:13,
ReplyDeleteIt's called the "Attack of the Blue Balls."
This should be rich: The Conference Board presents The New/Next CMO: A Master Class for Current and Aspiring CMOs on Nov. 8featuring none other than Maryam Banikarim. All for a mere $995. Always interesting to follow the bouncing BlueBallsBanikarim.
ReplyDeleteI wouldnt pay $5 to listen to her "expertise." She has proven her worthlessness time and again. what a clueless, egomaniacal twit.
DeleteThanks for stoping by MAC
DeleteGannett cordially invites you and a guest to David Hunke's retirement-resignation-fired party. But when?
ReplyDeleteGannett Co., Inc. (NYSE:GCI): Jim Cramer ranked this stock a Buy. Cramer previously ranked this stock a Sell on April 23, 2012. The stock’s 52-week high is $19.09, and its 52-week low is $8.48.
ReplyDeleteDid one of Gannett's courageous journalists actually file a complaint about the "Cool Balls" memo? I'm betting no.
ReplyDeleteAmazing that Maryam Banikarim can send a memo with sexual connotations, "Blue Balls", yet if anyone played AC/DC's "Big Balls" on their computer they'd be reprimanded or fired. We a little "Dirty Deeds, Done Dirt Cheap" for her ilk in this industry.
ReplyDeleteOMG, JIM!!
ReplyDeleteOn m.usatoday.com, there are NOT 'balls' -- the SQUARES are still there!!
The world has ended. /deep sarcasm/
Fourth quarter layoffs and reorganization coming at Usa Today. Kramer wants to clear out the cobwebbers and make some splashy hires.
ReplyDeleteACA has no effect on companies already providing a health care plan. 10:19 is apparently on some kind of vendetta over the ACA.
ReplyDeleteJOURNALISM 101
ReplyDelete"ACA has no effect on companies already providing a health care plan."
And your rock-solid proof is?
Got a signed promised from anyone? Who will lose their jobs, when something fails?
Where's your evidence of this? Where's the links (URLs)?
You got your PhD (finance) from?
We're not Gannettoids. We actually have brains that work.
11:26,
ReplyDeleteIf Conference Board is running an event for "aspiring CMOs" Maryam should defintely attend.
No vendetta 2:35 PM, just honest concern about a bill that even the CBO projects will cost $1 trillion more than it was projected to cost when Obama signed it into law. Someone will pay that added expense on top of the bill that will arrive next year and that money will come from this industry too, including those who support it.
ReplyDeleteFrankly, your comment that the “ACA has no effect on companies already providing (a) health care plan” is absurd as even USA Today has written stories about businesses who will consider and/or stop providing health insurance because the ACA penalty is far cheaper than the health care plans themselves. Moreover, others will soon be letting employees know that monies they used to get via flexible spending accounts for health care will be less, if any is provided at all because of the ACA, a move that will impact workers at ALL income levels.
It’s a big story, one that will impact this company in many ways.
Get ready.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/story/2012-07-02/health-care-facts-obama-romney-ruling/55982130/1
New York Times college football writer Paul Myerberg joins USA Today in a similar role on 10/1.
ReplyDelete“Under the Affordable Care Act... starting Jan. 1, 2013, there will be a new $2,500 annual salary-deferral limit for healthcare FSAs (Flexible Spending Accounts).
ReplyDeleteCurrently, there is no legal limit, and 78% of large employers set it at $5,000 or higher, according to AON Hewitt. The $2,500 cap was a revenue raiser estimated at $14.6 billion over 10 years. The thinking is that with the cap, there is no need for the use-it-or-lose-it rule. But that comes with a cost.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleaebeling/2012/06/19/obamacare-calls-flexible-spending-account-use-it-or-lose-it-rule-into-question/
5:30 Myerberg would not come cheap.
ReplyDeleteHowever much money ... How on earth could someone go from the NYT to USAT? They must have really sold him a huge bill of goods about the future.
ReplyDelete7:16 it's easy to understand if you take your biased sunglasses off. The Sports team is the talk of the industry. Everyone wants in. But you don't care because you're unhappy so everything sucks.
DeleteWho (or what) in hell is MAC and why is he or she always getting posted on here? The best I can guess is Maryam And ... who is the C?
ReplyDelete7:16 Maybe a chance to be lead football writer and cover the best games?
ReplyDeleteI'm trying to give the reimagined USA Today website some time....but after a few days of visiting it every day, it still feels too busy for me.
ReplyDeleteIt gives me serious ADD.
Not sure it's as user friendly as they had hoped.
U.S. Distrust in Media Hits New High
ReplyDeleteFewer Americans closely following political news now than in previous election years
“Media sources must clearly do more to earn the trust of Americans, the majority of whom see the media as biased one way or the other. At the same time, there is an opportunity for others outside the "mass media" to serve as information sources that Americans do trust.” Paywalls may bring quick cash but the long haul says adapt to a model that embraces true impartiality or die.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157589/distrust-media-hits-new-high.aspx
8:57 great speech. Now tell us how an online media company makes money if they don't have a paywall? Ads don't pay the bills.
DeleteAfternoon drive host on Washington DC Sports Talk station regarding USA Today redesign: "It's not a newspaper anymore, it's a printout of the internet."
ReplyDeleteGRACIA DOES READ JIM'S BLOG
ReplyDeleteUSAT Android now working. One less worker-bee @ USAT.
A.C.A. OPINION
ReplyDeleteACA won't change anything?
Whoa. Think. How can you 'up-end' 17% of the U.S. economy and NOT 'change' anything?
I realize 99% of those here did not take physics, but c'mon, use some common sense.
Try this: remember all those system upgrades (e.g., ATEX). How'd those go? (LOL, ROTFL)
LOL, ROTFL at the naive gullibility of the ACA yahoos. No wonder there are no jobs.
4:46, don't bother.
ReplyDeleteWhen you have fools in OWS, demanding $80K/year jobs when their LI.com CVs list them as "anarchists," spending two seconds with such fools is pissing in the wind.
Better to spend time on the 27,000,000 Americans who are unemployed/under-employed and now have to compete with 2,000,000 new, young "legals." No job -- nothing else matters.
Got that, Gracia and USAT?
3:28's comment proves my point -- and shows why I should have removed 10:19/10:57's comments for good the first time around.
ReplyDeleteWhenever I leave standing a comment that touches on partisan politics, it always leads to an off-topic thread.
So, to reiterate once more: This is not a blog about politics. It's not about healthcare reform. It's not about the broader economy. There are thousands of blogs devoted to those subjects.
But there's only one devoted to Gannett. So, unless comments are framed very specifically around that subject, I remove them. And dropping Gannett's name gratuitously into a comment doesn't count.
Thank you in advance.
4:59 writes of USA Today: "The Sports team is the talk of the industry."
ReplyDeleteHave you read the talk on the sportsjournalists.com forums?
5:20 Jim, oh snap!!! Great sports journalists are knocking down the doors to join the Sports team. You can refer folks to all the sour pusses you want. The facts speak for themselves Gramps
ReplyDeletePoint made, Jim.
ReplyDeleteHeck, let's find out why USAT Android (which, BTW, does NOT have advertising yet), failed during 'launch' week. Not enough 'blue b*lls?'
Yo, Gracia -- this Publishing 101 -- blocking & tackling.
(NYTimes-mobile, WaPo-Android, LATimes-Android have advertising.)
Prediction: there will be USAT-Android advertising in two weeks. Or more heads will roll. Can't sell what you don't show off.
You're welcome, Gracia. Have a nice quarterly report -- the federal pension folks may be watching.
Has anyone read the opinionated, poorly written drivel that passes for "news" on the Sports website? Who edits this shit? Who hired these people?
ReplyDeleteTRY READING
ReplyDelete" .. How on earth could someone go from the NYT to USAT? They must have really sold him a huge bill of goods about the future."
Google "NYTimes, stalled union talks, and loss of total NYT stock/debt value."
Better to have your own contract than worry about more layoffs. Kind of like being a Gannettoid, but you don't look stupid, goofy, back-stabbing, and the punchline for a national joke.