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, June 14, 2013
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)
Jim missed another big story. He was napping.
ReplyDeleteMoney well spent.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.digiday.com/agencies/what-cannes-really-costs/
Just in time for his Monday USA Today column, Michael Wolff has yet another Rupert Murdoch story to rehash.
ReplyDeleteOh snap!
DeleteAt least he has something. Unlike this blog!
DeleteIn fact, 11:50, Wolff wrote about another subject this morning: CNN.
DeleteMaybe Gannett is better at running broadcast than print. You never seem to have the broadcast employees crying and moaning here, not like the print news people.
ReplyDeleteGranted print is dead, but that has just as much to do with the advancement of the digital world than Gannets’ inability to run a newspaper.
Print might be crawling on it's hands and knees but print is not dead. Even with the outrageous price increases people still buy this thing...and would even more if the price was right and the paper was made with all the glory it used to be.
DeleteHoly #@@*. Been sent 4 e-mails from the local Gannett management team telling us to show up for the company wide town hall after which the publisher will answer questions ... and we are not anywhere near where these TV stations have been scooped up.
ReplyDeleteWonder what else is going to be chatted about?
Larry St Cyr to the rescue!!!!!
ReplyDeleteThe haters have been very quiet today tomorrow or next week when the big institutional investors take their profits they will be back to their hooting and hollering selves. But today was me favorite blog day. It was positive for a change!! A wonderful change.
ReplyDeleteWhat's sad about the Blog is that if some middle-level manager at one of our papers changes the size of paper cups or takes over a parking space there are 50-60 crazed postings.
ReplyDeleteBut here we have one of the biggest events in the history of the company and there's a smattering of this-will-fail-too, or cool-my-stock-went-up posts.
Actual discussion or debate? Minimal. Why? Because it's something of substance, not the latest I-hate-my-job-and-my-boss-is-a-jerk, which is a lot easier.
Jim's not helping much. I found out more watching the silly Town Hall than I do reading anything here. Are we really incapable of discussing without sounding like Trotskyites vs. Tories?
Trotskyites vs. Tories??? Please.
DeleteMore like Jersey Shore vs. Here Comes Honey Boo Boo — with the odd Jerry Springer rerun into the bargain.
I believe,and not to be too critical,BUT..
Deletethe stock is going up because the broadcast sector made a huge cash purchase.
How does that help the print side ?
This blog focuses on newspapers and print divisions.
This does not increase revenue for the newspaper division in any way.This just means that the broadcast side may be on more solid ground.
It certainly does not mean the newspaper side will be any more stable than it was 2 days ago.
So,if they were planning on layoffs before this week,that will not change.
Sell the stock now!
I thought this was the Gannett blog, not the print blog.
DeleteInteresting how I here a major component of the BELO purchase was Cash. Yet from what I read they are using debt for most of the Cash component, while assuming a large amount of debt from BELO. Shouldn't that be how the story is told....Other people's money purchasing BELO....Give Martone a raise for the pyramid scam she is running.
ReplyDeleteThat the deal is so highly leveraged is a sign of how far Gannett has come since the spring of 2009, when billions in debt put the company at great risk. Gannett is borrowing again.
DeleteWatch how the anchor in this news brief brutalize the names of Gannett and Belo. Don't miss it. It's the first headline in this news brief. You can't expect anything but the best reporting from Fox Business News.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2013/06/13/gannett-to-buy-belo-for-15-billion-cash-to-assume-debt-also/
[The execution of this YouTube segment leaves a bit to be desired, but it's an interesting discussion and perspective that should be factored into the discourse about the future of local television news and local news in general. It's about 4mins.]
ReplyDeleteLocal News Is Dying
http://youtu.be/N4TeNX5Vjus
Published on Mar 20, 2013
Dave and the panel discuss a new poll that says local TV news is following print's path.
Local TV news is following the path of print news. According to a Pew survey, 31% of respondents said they "have stopped turning to a news outlet because it no longer provided them with the news they were accustomed to getting." There is a decreasing amount of in-depth journalism being produced, and an increase on three main topics — weather, traffic and sports.
Yes, this is interesting. They are referring to this recent Pew research:
Deletehttp://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/local-tv-news-facing-challenges-turns-to-heavy-diet-of-traffic-weather-and-sports/
Local TV News, Facing Challenges, Turns to Heavy Diet of Traffic, Weather and Sports
While the first and hardest-hit segment of the news business, newspapers, remains in the spotlight, local TV finds itself newly vulnerable, according to the Pew Research Center’s latest State of the News Media report.
Local TV audiences were down across every key time slot and across all networks in 2012. And the off-peak news hours, like 4:30 a.m. news shows that stations had been adding for years seem to have hit their audience ceiling.
While stations devoted more of their available air time to local news, that wasn’t sufficient to halt the decline in viewership. Early-morning newscasts continued to gain viewers, but that increase was more than offset by losses in most other time slots.
It's clear that research about the future of audiences and local tv news did not play into Gannett decision to double down on their tv assets. It can be argued that they’re attempting to trade in one dying business for another as I think someone else mentioned on this blog. Or until they unload their newspapers, it’s possible that they are doing all they can to bolster (or mask, depending on how you want to look at it) their print revenues with broadcast dollars.
ReplyDeleteIt looks like a great move in the short term. It's a great move for investors. Perhaps it's pushed morale up at Gannett. People are feeling good about the company because they are actually taking some risks albeit extremely safe risk, but a risk nonetheless. Perhaps This is great because it helps position them in front of national advertisers as a compelling buy.
So, time will tell.
It's merely an accretive deal, increasing EPS and cash flow, not a long-term strategic play. As Ken Doctor put it, it gives them another 3-5 years of time, which happens to be the window of Gracia's tenure in the CEO job. Also helps cover weaknesses in the digital marketing strategy and likely shortfall of the paywall strategy.
DeleteReading about how Gannett has placed it's bet 100% on television, it reminds me of Business Insider Henry Blogdet's pieces last year about the collapse of the television business. It's not as radical of a POV as some have made it out to be. Let's throw these into the mix for discussion. Would love to get you GB'ers perspective.
ReplyDelete"Don't Mean To Be Alarmist, But The TV Business May Be Starting To Collapse"
http://www.businessinsider.com/tv-business-collapse-2012-6#ixzz2WBnjBbHO
"For Whom The Bell Tolls? It Tolls For TV..."
http://www.businessinsider.com/for-whom-the-bell-tolls-it-tolls-for-tv-2012-10
I can tell you that those pieces were widely and publicly derided by Dave Lougee when they came out.
DeleteHaha, of course. He obviously hasn't had conversations with people that say to him as someone said to me a few months back, "I never watch local television news (and the emphasis was on NEVER). It serves absolutely no purpose to me and my family's life. It's completely irrelevant. If all I need to watch the local news for is to get the weather, I can get it on my phone in 5 sec and I'm done, the kids are dressed and I'm out the door."
DeleteShe's only one person, but think about what she said. The only reason she was watching local television news to begin with was to get the weather forecast to see how to dress her kids for school. That's it.
This is what has happened over the years with how local news has been produced and presented. The focus has been on weather, traffic and sports. The news? Well, who's missing, who got raped, murdered, or molested? Not especially appealing content for a mom raising kids under 5.
She wants information about what she can do with her family and places she can take her kids. She has to sort through all the murders to find that content on the actual TV and since nearly all local TV stations websites and mobile assets suck, she can definitely not find what she wants there. So, she gets what she needs from her friends and social media via her phone (and maybe her computer when she has time) - and that's it.
Again, she's only one person, but this person is growing in numbers and will be a key factor in the continued decline of local television audiences.
True local television news viewership is declining; mostly because we have a generation that isn’t interested in news from any source, but TV is mostly an entertainment media and doesn’t have to produce or present an abundance of news, just run some reality shows and they have their audience.
ReplyDeleteWell it took less than 24 hours for the naysayers to recover from their horror over the great move to purchase Belo. Same old tired arguments. Go Gracia. Go Dave and just to get their attention, Go Maryam!!!!
ReplyDelete9:01am, from an objective point of view, it appears that the posts this morning are not naysaying at all. There are some interesting content here to discuss. Did you read any of those articles? Or is it that you just don't understand them and can't intelligently discuss them?
DeleteThis deal is a short term thinking deal. Given the trends in audiences and engagement across all media, do you seriously think this move positions Gannett for significant growth over the long term? If so, please share with this blog why and provide evidence so we can understand your POV. Just saying that these posts about the decline of the TV business is just naysaying is lazy and an easy out for people who don't want to face the reality of the truth.
Sure, it may be good deal for now. It may actually be a very good deal financially - for now. But, the question is, is it a good deal for five years from now? I think not and many others do as well.
This New York Times story on the challenges faced by the big TV networks is worth reading. A sample:
Delete"Even their biggest hits, like 'American Idol' and 'Dancing With the Stars,' are fading fast. Advertisers are moving more cash to cable, cutting into the networks’ quarterly profits. New technologies are making it easier to skip those ads, anyway."
So you were scooped on the story(remember when you had My Boss) and then you had to look for a story trashing TV stations. What a loser! A d all for $10 a day.
DeleteVery good deal for the broadcast side of the corp.
DeleteBut how does that bolster the newspaper side?
Advertising on the print side continues to dive and the broadcast section is a separate entity. So what is there to cheer about if you are employed at a newspaper site.
Gannett is trying to increase broadcast profits to offset the continuing print losses.When the broadcast profit margin is strong what do you think will happen to the less than profitable news division?
To the extent that it stabilizes the company's overall financial health, this deal is a good thing for all the company's divisions -- not just broadcast.
DeleteHaving said that, the newspapers must still find a way to slow and then stop the slide in advertising sales.
With all the excitement you all missed this as well. Jim? http://247wallst.com/2013/06/04/gannett-sees-rare-analyst-upgrade-as-migration-to-digital-keeps-happening/
ReplyDeleteAll the excitement was yesterday not ten days ago.
DeleteWhat is maddening is all the changes they made at my local paper and the poor working conditions. They said they were making them because revenues were declining from ad sales across Gannett. Since revenue has increased by 100 million will they now act human again. I mean they can't afford to pay people a decent wage and give decent working conditions but they can take on 2.2 billion more in debt. What a morally bankrupt company. I expect some Gannett cheerleader to criticize me or this post. They criticize it all the time yet for some reason still read it everyday.
ReplyDeleteHello, 11:17. I suggest that you are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. The blog was founded by Jim to discuss things of relevance to Gannett employees. Criticism, based on reasoned arguments and coming from mature minds, is a vital part of that. But I don't think that, in his wildest dreams, Jim envisaged that his blog would attract platoons of cranks who just like to constantly whine about everything under the sun. You're not one of those people, but I respectfully suggest that your criticism should be more properly directed at those who clog this site with weirdness, homophobia and hate.
Delete11:28 maybe, If they are just directing them at the post Jim has to spend time deleting. I think some of the people that continue to attack what is on this blog are the same people that have their posts deleted. They don't want to read anything bad against Gannett or it's management.
DeleteYou missed the point, 11:41, probably intentionally.
Delete11:28 was discussing the waves of insane people who bitch about absolutely everything. You, like others, try to spin that into some sort of bid to protect Gannett. Not so. Some of us just get SO tired of the never-ending whining about petty crap.
"I mean they can't afford to pay people a decent wage and give decent working conditions but they can take on 2.2 billion more in debt."
DeleteHuh? Regular visitors will be accustomed to bizarre non-sequiturs, but that one takes the cake.
Well, after 3 1/2 hours....I'm kinda out of the mood.
ReplyDeleteOkay, here's the rest of the story. Once fully integrated Gannett will be split into two companies, one Broadcast, one everything else. Simple as that.
ReplyDelete