Sunday, June 02, 2013

USAT | And we'll do it with 10% fewer employees

"Our goal is to create a Gannett-wide news feed of the most creative, fresh, and cutting-edge journalism in the world."

-- USA Today Editor-in-Chief David Callaway, in a new memo explaining how editorial will be reorganized following the most recent round of buyouts.

28 comments:

  1. Setting lofty goals can be inspiring. After all, if you don't shoot for the stars, you'll never have a chance.

    That said, you lose substantial credibility when you repeatedly set goals that are wildly out of sync with reality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, Jimbo, what is your goal with this site? I'd like to know.

      Delete
    2. Jim's goal always has been to give us a voice and information on Gannett - something the Crystal Palace folks and local managers have never done.

      Delete
    3. OK. What voice do you have, outside of ranting about specific managers? What good does that do?

      What information do you get? Some people post about layoffs at various sites. How do you know that information is accurate?

      Delete
    4. My goal hasn't changed since Day 1: to provide a safe place where current and former employees can exchange information about Gannett without fear of retribution from management.

      Delete
    5. Are you ready to admit you failed? The "information" that is exchanged can be obtained elsewhere, with fewer crazy rants. There is nothing here I would ever believe without corroboration from another, far more reliable source.

      Delete
    6. 5:13 some of those so called crazy rants are full of information whether it is important to you is not relevant.

      Delete
    7. What is relevant is that none of it is credible.

      Delete
  2. He's already helped this single mom, by reading this blog I had a 6 month heads up that my job was being outsourced. Very much appreciated. I was able to plan and prepare while still employed.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 4:22pm, well, that's a real smart question. What's your goal with coming on the site? What's your purpose?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What are you afraid of, 7:58? Jim's a big boy. Let him answer.

      Delete
    2. Someone else here.

      My goal in coming to this site is to learn something. Sadly that hasn't been the case since Jim decided to resurect the blog. Now it is just bitching and whining, never anything of substance.

      I believe Jim's only purpose for this blog is to generate enough clicks to get a little ad revenue. Not a bad part time gig. You delete a few comments, post a dull, already obvious story every week or so, thank the few nut jobs that donate money to the charity and be on about your business. Who can blame him as long as money comes in, especially since there is no overhead.

      Yesir, no lofty goals here; every one can be met.

      Delete
    3. 4:24 thanks for your clicks. Jim needs all of them this site can get. You seem to be on here often even though it is all useless information for you. Just hoping one day it will all pay off for you?

      Delete
    4. 4:36:

      You make my point on the clicks.

      I am not here that often - normally once a week to see if there is anything worth reading and more frequently if I have added a comment just to see what drivel follows.

      Can you spell entertainment? That is about the only payoff there is these days when there is that.

      Delete
    5. I must say 11:38 makes good points beginning with the first one (pun intended). This blog can be funny for the most part.

      Delete
  4. Perhaps 10% fewer employees if you're just counting bodies, but if you're counting talent, experience and productivity, make that a reduction of 40% as a result of the most recent buyouts. At least. What a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hey 4:22! Wassup with you? I've been coming to this site for information for the past 3 years & will continue to do so. Grow up 4:22!
    Thanks Jim for all your efforts. GB has & will continue to be an "ear" to GannettLand.
    With much appreciation

    ReplyDelete
  6. And we'll do it with 8% less circulation.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It's a nasty cycle - cut staff, which leads to less in the product, raise the price of the product, circulation drops, less advertisers want to be part of it, revenue drops, more staff is cut and the whole cycle continues to repeat itself. But the USAT does have a nice new shinny blue blob.

    ReplyDelete
  8. If a 10 percent reduction creates "the most creative, fresh, and cutting-edge journalism in the world," imagine the lean and mean news machine a 40 percent reduction in work force would bring.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Lets face it, folks. We lost more dead weight than talent in the buyouts. Now, Callawaynand Kramer have to get the dregs of what remains to do some actual work. The complainers and whiners may have left, but there still too many slugs and toadies in the building.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually. valuable people were among those deciding to take the buyout. Some management drones also should have gone as well, but probably realized that they couldn't earn as much as they do at the paper. From the tone of your post, I'd say not all the whiners and complainers have left the building.

      Delete
  10. Keep up the good work Jim. Don't let the haters and assorted douche bags get you down.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, 11:46 a.m. I agree. I have been reading Jim's blog since it began. There is useful information from most people who post here. Unfortunately, Jim's blog also serves as a vehicle for homophobic comments, personal attacks, and generally hateful remarks from some sad souls who seem to get joy from layoffs, furloughs and other workplace travails of their colleagues. Why would that make these people happy? I salute Jim for putting up with these troubled minds. Of course, the venom will now spew from these people because we support Jim.

      Delete
  11. First off, this blog is a healthy way to express opinions about a company that has never been known as a desirable place to work. If there was such a thing as a blog in 1980, you would have heard the same complaints about Gannett. USA Today was the exception, until about 10 years ago. Now, it's just as bad as any other Gannett property. You don't see it making any "Best Places to Work" lists -- not locally in the D.C. market or in journalism circles nationally. There is a reason for that and this blog confirms what most of us have known for years. Gannett is a nice place to get your feet wet, or if you happen to work for a decent publisher/editor, it can be OK for a longer period of time, but overall, Gannett/USAT are run like many ugly corporations, with lots of lying, back-stabbing, using and disposing of people, etc. USAT in particular is a cut-throat place where decisions are made on who is popular and who isn't. The hell with talent or ethics. It's essentially a kiss-ass, beauty contest.

    The bottom line isn't just important, it's everything. Greed is supreme, and even if you think you're in good favor, wait a year or five, you too will eventually discover how ruthless this company can be. Go ahead an defend Gannett, then come back here in several years and see if you feel the same way.

    As for USAT and it's so-called 10 percent reduction in staff...that's a total joke. Just to make this easy to understand.. If you run a company with 100 employees and 10 leave via buyouts or layoffs, yes, mathematically that's a 10 percent reduction. However, if five of those 10 were the backbone of the operation, the people in the trenches who quietly did their jobs well and saved the company from embarrassment on a routine basis, well, you've lost a lot more than 10 percent of your workforce. Even if the other five losses were dead wood, you still ended up throwing out the baby with the bath water. And that's what USA Today has done in the last 5-6 years time and time again. What's even more amazing is the fact that some of the worst workers imaginable -- people who have no credentials whatsoever in news -- have survived the cuts. And while the cuts themselves have occurred in recent years, the place has been mismanaged by the corner office folks (past and present) for at least a decade if not two. The hires and promotions they made still haunt the place.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Colton,Weiss,Hill Kirk,Ullman,Henderson and most of those they have promoted and endorsed should be shift canned immediately.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are absolutely right.

      Delete

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.