An independent journal about the Gannett Co. and the news industry's digital transition
Wall street wants to know how Gannett will make up for the revenue they are bleeding in print? GPS needs to get on the private distributors, increase circulation, improve customer relations and do a better job of counting returns.
Sad day Thursday at Usa Today: lots of people's last day before buyouts take hold. Lot of dead weight remains in the building, and a lot of talent heading out the door. Colton, Hillkirk, Henderson still around drawing high salaries and lots of contempt will do nothing for morale.
There is a lot of dead weight at other sites as well. There is a weekly with 4 sales reps and their total sales revenue is down year to year more than 40% compared to four years ago.They rarely work,instead sit at the computers and try look busy.Two could easily handle the incoming emailed ads as there is very little selling going on.Go figure.
Talent, my friend at 7:49, is an especially misdefined word in Gannett. Talent is what you find at the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall St. Journal and to a lesser extent at the Philly Inquirer, Boston Globe, LA Times, Miami Herald and Tampa Bay Times. USA Today? Get real. If anyone were really good there, they'd be at the Times or Post by now.
NYT and WSJ are awful places to work. Grass is not always greener and some stay here because it's a much better place to be. I know that might be hard for some to believe.
It all comes down to one's willingness to work under mediocre, sometimes awful editors, at a mediocre, sometimes awful newspaper.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
TO: All GPS Employees FR: Evan Ray, President of GPS RE: Voluntary Early Retirement Opportunity Program Dear Colleagues: Today we are offering a voluntary Early Retirement Opportunity Program to 160 eligible employees of GPS distribution and single-copy sales and educational sales who are age 56 or older with at least 20 years of service, as of June 21, 2013. This offer is designed to be as attractive as or better than others in the industry. The offer provides for salary continuation of two weeks’ pay for each complete year of service, capped at 52 weeks, with ongoing health, dental and vision coverage during this period. As mentioned – the program is completely voluntary for these valued, long-term employees. They have helped us achieve much over the years and their work is greatly appreciated. The Early Retirement Opportunity Program is one part of our ongoing strategy to continually balance operational needs with resource levels. This program is being offered as part of an important organizational restructuring that will enhance our cost efficiency. If you have any questions feel free to contact your manager, local Human Resources Business Partner, or GPS HR lead Melissa Alford (517.377.1030 or firstname.lastname@example.org). Evan Ray
What he really wanted to say to our "valued, long-term employees", please get the f*ck out!
Yes, so "valued" they are willing to pay to get you out. What horse shit double speak.
Evan Ray a Gannett Hatchet man that is all he is. That is all he knows how to be. That is all he does.
It's very sad to see talented colleagues take buyouts because they fear the next letter will be a pink slip. Managing by fear is not a good way to do business but it's a Gannett specialty. We are seeing it now at USA TODAY and saw it last year with the community papers. The smug publishers and executive editors and others might deny it, but I've witnessed it for years. You come to work each day wondering what or who will be cut or is simply leaving next. It's depressing.
So what's your solution? Yes, an industry shrinking faster than workers exit it makes for a lot of pain and anxiety. If you have a better way to deal with that reality, let's hear it.
Anyone who could come up with an alternative -- a magic investment that would get revenue growing again, thus averting job cus -- would be an overnight gazillionaire.
Yes, it's very depressing. I just might be the next one after 24 years.
Reality to some corporate shill is that Revenue is falling so get rid of more employees. then give the executives promotions with higher pay. Then watch revenue drop some more and do it again. 12:01's message is so old and tired it is just what they want you to think.
8:37 PM - Yes, that is reality. With half the revenue, you simply must cut expenses or go bust. What is so damn difficult to grasp?
So cut the damn excessive corporate executive bonuses like other companies do. What is so difficult to grasp?
11:08 PM - Why? They're doing what they're supposed to do. Do you think you're going to replace them for less? Anyway, their pay doesn't amount to a hill of beans compared to the magnitude of the problem.
Update on Al's ego burial services. I notice, that he having THREE funerals. Want to bet the one in D.C.people are being pay to come.http://www.millerlienfh.com/fh/obituaries/obituary.cfm?o_id=2084468&fh_id=13305
Oh good God man....you're not the Pope!
Correction. He intended to state it as "20 years of servitude..." Spell check never replaces word check!
Anyone know the current status of Dave Gould, who has been the VP over advertising at The Tennessean in Nashville for 11 years?
Dave Gould has left the building. Purchased Main Street Media, publisher of weekly newspapers and a local magazine.
Sounds like the Tennessean OC is in for a shakeup. You couldn't find a more arrogant group.
I was laid of in 2010 as a USAT Circ Dir. & understood the reason behind it. Sadly I let 6 staffers go the year before in an effort to help save the sinking ship. I was really ticked off after reading here in the gannettblog how the board was given big buck$ bonuses at year end for bringing more to gannett's bottom line. 164 employees & their families were impacted by that layoff decision, however gannett saw fit that it's board members received some of that money as a bonus.
9:12, Thank you for your contribution, because it really puts things in perspective. I think that the whole "checks & balance" system needs to be reassessed... When the vast majority of the company has suffered devastating financial losses in funding and resources, the top management shoulld not recieve a reward as if it is a standard "bottom line" reduction. There should be an absolute math behind this... This type of reduction in staff resources should not equate to bonuses for management above... There is really no "winner" while we are continously reducing our staff to make up for a shortage of income. ... This is pure math/algorithims and this mistake will not be addressed by any corrupt power that benefits from it. ... Let's force them to address the shortage of resources to mask the shortage of revenue income. .... The bonuses should come form revenue alone and NOT from chopping resources to decrease the bottomline, as this significantly comprises the product and has a greater negative impact as it is compounded over time. (It is simple math.) ...And, let's change the rules for executive bonuses so that they have an actual INCENTIVE to develop new business /revenue and base bonuses only on new revenue. --- Please comment with opinions. I want to encourage feedback on this issue as it seems to be a major problem in a company.
Good grief. Management and directors have a fiduciary duty to shareholders. They are simply doing their jobs. They kept the company out of bankruptcy court, unlike some of its peers, and deserve to be rewarded for it.
Are you saying that lower management, below directors, are rewarded for staff reductions??? Because they are just given a "number" of staffers to eliminate. What is so difficult about calling in people into an office and saying "we have to let you go?" There were also some half retarded folks in lower mangagement. At gannett the lower management is filled with a great deal of egocentic folks that rather tell someone else do it, then actually "work" themselves.
Here is the crux of what makes Gannett employees upset. They watched poor decisions made during the layoffs and ignorance play out across the papers as downsizing occurred. Managers were threatened to keep quiet about what is going on and blindsided good employees with release. Leadership eventually took some pay adjustment but not on the front end where the responsibility should have started. Then, top executives accepted and took millions of dollars that could have been used to soften the landing of people who sacrificed much and helped build their properties reputations and ultimately Gannett. Now, Gannett realizes that the journalism matters - yet they ran off people like Ronnie Agnew and destroyed one of the most important newspapers in the South. This, after preaching diversity and a belief that they wanted to build up the ranks. There are many things Wanda may never say, but Gannett traded its soul and long hard work by Phil Currie to have a great bench regardless of background. Downsizing was necessary, but when the most care was needed, the people who cared the most were not included in the discussion. Do I sound bitter? Well, I was a lucky one and still hold onto the hope that the entire soul isn't gone. Will someone please speak up for diversity of all kinds, and that leadership in that area requires tolerance for different perspectives. Leadership has to be willing to listen or at least read the tea leaves through safe listening channels. Its biggest failing was trusting people to make decisions mostly reviewing spreadsheets instead of the operations. Can't believe Don Hudson would be let go (now many years ago). The disappointment is in the actions of the Gannett leadership and how it tossed aside years of work in an important area. This rant ends with the mistake Gannett now is making, still focused on the quick buck. If it truly wants to own local markets ... They will have to pay for talent that can handle the frequency and care needed in producing the content. The low quality we are seeing in some markets will relegate Gannett second or third to TV stations. Yes, I'm an old cog. But I'm hoping someone can make sense of what I'm saying. You can tell from my rant, I'm not a top newsy.
11:02 You may not be a top newsy but you are a smart newsy. Thanks for a very good and passionate posting that unfortunately will fall on deaf ears.
If Agnew and Hudson are example of great modern journalista then you don't have a clue. Nice guys but not modern digital experts. Sorry if the truth hurts.
It's easier to adapt great work to new media than to get something out of meaningless tweets and Facebook posts.
Why didn't they get Benny Ivory to lead USAT? What a missed opportunity. O' maybe he knew better.
Eh would USAT want a print centric editor at the end of his career. Great print editor but.....
Why not eh
Print is dead...long live digital.
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