USA Today Publisher Larry Kramer has built up a technology team of 85 people to make the newspaper "more digitally savvy and to fundamentally alter" the way the editorial staff approaches the news cycle.
"I had to change the structure of the staff so they produced for digital first," he told Business Insider's Ignition conference in New York yesterday.
How's this team organized? How many of the 85 are new hires? The Wrap's account of the conference doesn't say.
Less surprising, according to the Wrap: Kramer isn't opposed to following The New York Times and others by constructing a paywall around USAT's website; "he just doesn't think the national newspaper has done enough to differentiate itself from the digital herd."
 |
| Kramer |
How's this team organized? How many of the 85 are new hires? The Wrap's account of the conference doesn't say.
Less surprising, according to the Wrap: Kramer isn't opposed to following The New York Times and others by constructing a paywall around USAT's website; "he just doesn't think the national newspaper has done enough to differentiate itself from the digital herd."
All of us, even long time gannettoids resistant to change, were very hopeful when Larry arrived. He has proved to be a kind, gentle, positive soul. A likeable guy, but as months have worn on, we here have to wonder: Where's the beef?
ReplyDeleteSure, there has been chair shufflin' and deck rearrangin' and positive thinkin', but naming 10 managing editors and three executive editors and dumping video and barely editd short stories all over a confusing website does nothing for readers or enhances Usa Today's reputation. The few reporters left are incapable of fast tracking substantial stories to compete with AP and generally lack the sophisticated angles posed by best in class competition.
85 digitally focused "journalists"? That is playing fast and loose with reality, Lar. You need to spend some more time talking to your people instead of making the rounds of p.r. Callaway, even more so. There is some silly shit going on. You have to be around to solve things if you want to be making real, long term growth. The newsrooms continue to suffer neglect and inept leadership. Roll up your sleeves and see what actually goes on. Shake up and replace a weak, unmotivated staff from the bottom up, not the top down.
If he replaced top leadership the blog would be filled with vile posts demanding his head for disrespecting "Founders." There is a consistent theme here, any senior level decision is a bad one. You'll see. Stay tuned.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteLike him,but he truly is delusional. Just smile and pretend he and his new top heavy management team are change agent geniuses.
ReplyDeleteThese top editors/publishers come in, make a bunch of money, and have no real love or connection to the USA TODAY brand. Say what you will about the Curly's and old Al, but at least you could feel their passion and presence. And they stuck around for more than a couple of years. You might not have liked their style, but they definitely led. They rolled up their sleeves. They looked you in the and didn't just give pep speeches in auditoriums. Most of all, they didn't lay off anyone or pretend that playing musical chairs was going to solve serious problems in the newsroom.
ReplyDeleteThen came the Paulson/Moon era. The lies began. The spin was non-stop. They made their bucks and got out of dodge, leaving us holding bags of sh-t.
Sadly, a lot of people who poured their hearts and soul into USAT, are gone. Folks at all levels, people who came to work every day and tried to do the right thing...departed either on their own or were forced out because they were deemed expendable by leaders who were not only incompetent, but also petty.
The decline hasn't stopped. The leadership is still detached and unwilling to right the wrongs that have been committed here in the last several years. They come up with things like balls for logos and think we should all jump for joy about how innovative that is.
I see no signs of honor, integrity or sincerity in any of these people. They think web programmers are the answer to everything. They don't respect the readers. These leaders of ours are getting worse by the year and appointing people to jobs who are equally incapable. It will take years to undo the damage they've all created for USAT.
It is so tiring to hear from the same disgruntled USAT staffer who continually posts about the lack of integrity and "petty'' decisions that supposedly went into past layoffs at the newspaper.
ReplyDeleteThere was not one layoff (nor "retirement''), that was approached with anyelleming sadness and regret. People were not happily drummed out, not were people targeted.
It sucked, those layoffs (big time) every single one of them, but this constant bleat that top managers somehow rubbed their hands together and thought, "great, I can get rid of so-and-so because I just don't like him (or her)", is just ugliness and nonsense.
The layoffs hurt and shook the organization to its soul and the anger and resentment remains. It is understandable. But the layoffs were fought, resisted, some top leaders (Paulson for one), even left rather than do them.
So enough of this crap about the lack of integrity and all. If you don't think managers are smart enough, goal-oriented enough, not good managers, that's all fair game. But the layoffs were awful things, and to accuse managers of being cruel or heartless about it is completely wrong and unfair.
Whether the layoffs were four years ago or last week.
FIXING A SCRAMBLED WORD:
ReplyDeleteIt is so tiring to hear from the same disgruntled USAT staffer who continually posts about the lack of integrity and "petty'' decisions that supposedly went into past layoffs at the newspaper.
There was not one layoff (nor "retirement''), that was approached with anything but ovwerwhelming sadness and regret. People were not happily drummed out, not were people targeted.
It sucked, those layoffs (big time) every single one of them, but this constant bleat that top managers somehow rubbed their hands together and thought, "great, I can get rid of so-and-so because I just don't like him (or her)", is just ugliness and nonsense.
The layoffs hurt and shook the organization to its soul and the anger and resentment remains. It is understandable. But the layoffs were fought, resisted, some top leaders (Paulson for one), even left rather than do them.
So enough of this crap about the lack of integrity and all. If you don't think managers are smart enough, goal-oriented enough, not good managers, that's all fair game. But the layoffs were awful things, and to accuse managers of being cruel or heartless about it is completely wrong and unfair.
Whether the layoffs were four years ago or last week.
What a load of absurd crap. We've listened to your robot "we care" BS long enough, Steve Hyatt.
Delete"Kramer isn't opposed to following The New York Times and others by constructing a paywall around USAT's website; "he just doesn't think the national newspaper has done enough to differentiate itself from the digital herd."
ReplyDeleteHas anyone told Mr. Kramer that we just "re-imagined" USAT.com?
12:13 I believe that's true.
ReplyDeleteBut a little context is in order regarding Paulson. While he may have left the top editing job because he was weary of cost-cutting, he had a very attractive carrot in front of him: a $500K job at Freedom Forum.
(Note: More on his job status at FF, which is the original Gannett Foundation, coming soon.)
12:13 - That is a really nice speech but I actually know several publishers who were told to lay people off for the simple reason they were not "liked". It had absolutely nothing to do with the company's needs, just personal vendettas.
ReplyDelete11:30 am they also didn't have to compete against the internet. Different time, different arrogance.
ReplyDelete1:31 BS!
ReplyDeleteCallaway should have spent more time getting to know founders and non founders before making his imperial edicts and then barely being around. Who knew there were going to be so many opportunities for a select few?
ReplyDeleteLaughable. More so thsn Beusse's ham-fisted overhaul of Sports.
I dont care if you are a founder or not. This isnt the government.you shouldnt be sitting on your keister doing nothing all day. If you are productive, you should be rewarded for it, not living in fear because you are not among The Chosen, extra special senior managers who, by and large, do not add value to the operation.
ReplyDeleteCallaway and Kramer needed to inspire a tired, unfocused operation led by tired, unfocused leaders. Unfortunately, most just got promoted. what the fuck for?
The status quo crew will not lead us anywhere but oblvion.
4:20 if Kramer and Callaway canned all the veteran non performers you and your pals would be screaming at the insensitive treatment of the veterans. You can't have it both ways. Go back and check the posts during the sports changes.
DeleteWhy is this man smiling?
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't matter a fig if it's the biggest or smallest paper in the country. When will the boobs in charge realize you don't continue to give away your product for free?
ReplyDeleteBoobs are everywhere. The downfall came when everyone was giving their stuff away for free. The WSJ and NYT can charge because they offer something we never will: quality reporting, writing and storis you dont see elsewhere on a broad, consistent basis. They have large teams of experienced reporters and writers and editors who cover beats and develop sources. They are plugged in in ways Usa Today will never devote resources to. They have editors who spot trends and shape ideas and copy because they have been reporters themselves.they dont mange by edict, but by encouraging broad discussion and habe open, two way dialog with reporters and line editors. That dont happen at the Crystal Palace, where marching orders come out of early day meetings and second guessing happens a day later, after the competition has whupped us yet again.
ReplyDeleteDid we lose Susie Ellwood's fat salary so it could be redistributed to the 13 new senior newsroom leaders? Gosh, I sure hope not. We seldom see any doing real work or breaking much of a sweat, unless fuss-potting counts.
ReplyDeleteI wish Callaway had waited until he saw more of these people in action. Even so, this is excessive, in a Hunke, vice presidential appointment style repeat of the transformation fiasco. Who besides 13 editors benefits from a workflow process that remains unchanged? Where is the reporting help? Some people are dancing as fast as they can already. Adding stacks of upper management Jenga style does not get copy or video produced or to the readers any faster. Is this guy that out of touch with stated goals and actual need based staffing?
ReplyDeleteI suspect that Kramer and Callaway have put everyone on a sort of probationary status: If they don't see big improvement in 90 days, they'll start firing and then hiring from outside.
ReplyDeletePlace this is the Hopkins File titled, "Things I Totally Made Up on a Sunday Afternoon":
ReplyDeleteI suspect that Kramer and Callaway have put everyone on a sort of probationary status: If they don't see big improvement in 90 days, they'll start firing and then hiring from outside.
2:53 That's just simple logic, and follows Gannett's established management history, where new job holders are on probationary status, typically for 90 days.
ReplyDeleteBut my comment is also based on Callaway's staff reorganization memo from last month, where he writes "everybody will get a chance to contribute."
Jim,you are way off base here. Many of us are clueless about this latest reorganization, but this batch of management promotions is in no way connected to layoffs. You dont promote oodles of holdovers if you are going to lay off existing staff. Even the classless leadership of the past wasnt that stupid. Furloughs? That's another story. Expect at least a week in 2013, probably more.
ReplyDeleteOf course there could layoffsg. But the general thinking is Kramer and Callaway have at least six to nine months to turn things around. You could most certainly see wholesale staff reductions by then if advertising doesn't improve.
4:55 Perhaps that's true. But it's worth noting that Kramer has already been publisher more than six months, and Callaway's been in four months.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I didn't say layoffs were guaranteed or even planned.
What I am saying is that just because people were recently promoted or moved around doesn't guarantee that they'll stay in those jobs.
Kramer and Callaway want to give everyone a chance to keep a job in the newsroom -- but that hinges on the newsroom meeting their goal of creating a "faster and more dynamic news operation."