An independent journal about the Gannett Co. and the news industry's digital transition
From yesterday afternoon, this is the most astute and accurate asessment of our CMOs ever posted and well worth understanding. Thank you for sharing the assessment of Maryam Banikarim and Sandy Micek as we suffer through another ineffective but certainly expensive marketing campaign:Oh, you bet you can hang it on Sandy. She and BBB are BFFs all the way. Remember, BBB hired her. They think alike, but you're right, BBB clearly wears the pants. Bottomline is that they are all responsible for screwing up the USA TODAY brand.The commercial with the naked man hiding behind the usat newspaper when he was locked out of his room was actually pretty funny. The problem with that campaign was that the cheap crystal palace spreadsheeters wouldn't allocate the right amount of money to support a serious ad campaign. So, no one saw the commercial. It ran here and there on some cable news outlets for a few weeks and that was it. There were three or 4 others created at that time.Gannett's never been serious about marketing and promotion and they've never had the vision, intelligence, or judgment to create an effective and sustained approach to branding - not only USA TODAY, but Gannett and all of the local newspaper and television products. And, sadly, they still don't. What they hired in BBB and Sandy and others are cheap imitations of ad agency account managers posing as wanna-be-marketing professionals who really have no clue. All were out of a job and just happened to be at the right place at the right time when Gannett was turning over it's sr management and looking outside the company to bring new people in - that's it. Gannett was desperate, they were desperate and now you're sitting in the muck of the results of desperate people. Gannett's continued decline will not be an accident. This is all self-inflicted. It should not come as a surprise that readership is not growing, web/mobile traffic is not growing, circulation is not growing, and revenues are not growing (unless it's an election or Olympics year)
So well written. BBB surrounds herself with fancy boutique shops and big names in the industry but she, herself, will never be in that category. Cheap imitations, indeed. This is as close as she and her inner circle will ever come to being a part of these agencies.BBB doesn't know good creative, has never been a good judge of that. She is also one famous for not making decisions. She hires fancy shops, spends hundreds of thousands of dollars, and lets them dictate the brand promise.For what?She is a fraud, shocked she's lasted this long at Gannett. Most would have been on to her by now.Take a look at her history.
You are both so on target with your assessments of Bankirim and Micek! Extremely well done. Gannett was desperate....they were desperate. The perfect marriage. And now USA TODAY is desperate. And this new ad campaign is embarrassing.
When I worked for Gannett the marketing dept. had to understand GRPs, etc. when making media buys. The buys had to be justified with sufficient frequency and depth to "move the needle" and were to be evaluated after the campaign was done. Did circ. grow? Did ad fevenue grow? Did penetration among a tageted demo grow?This was during the Gary Watson era when they were attempting to actually use local marketing depots. for more than the dept..down the hall to get balloons.
You learn quick around here to kiss her butt if you want to keep your job.
It will be fun to watch Banikarim on NBC Sunday Morning once again grab the microphone and turn the spotlight on herself and pretend she was the one who invented and created Make A Difference Day and fed the poor and huddled the masses. Banikarim's next three-agency multi-hundred thousand dollar ad campaign will feature her mug carved on Mount Rushmore.
The bitter ex-marketing people seem to have a lot of time for analysis.By the way, the BBB "insult" lost its juice months ago.
Face it...the campaign SUCKS. I mean, hockey fans talking about steroids. Did anyone in the room realize BASEBALL has the steroid problem. STUPID. And thanks for making Susan Page look foolish. I'll bet that wasn't her choice.
10:00 AM we can always count on you for the point-less finger-pointing at "bitter ex-marketing people" that lost its juice months and months ago with your redundant posting. But that's your job, isn't it? Smooch Smooch Kiss Kiss that butt.
1:03, you forgot to work in the tired reference to BBB. Your fellow BEMP are disappointed.
I know it's not a cruise story, or a boring story about by-lines... but Bloomberg reports GCI was on the brink of losing the BLC deal.
Thanks for the tip. I'm now posted that Bloomberg story to the homepage.
Apparently, no one writing headlines for the new movie version of Romeo and Juliet on USA TODAY's website knows that "wherefore" means why, not where. English 101. http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2013/10/09/twilight-romeo-and-juliet/2917771/
How does Gannett's social media policy handle this? Reporters and photographers at some Gannett sites are taking to Facebook and Twitter to support the GOP shutdown and complain about health care reform. This seems to be a pretty clear violation of the social media policy.
Citizens of North Carolina have a heart even if Gannett does not. Vibrant Asheville Business threw a party this week to honor some longtime newsroom people who were laid off from the Citizen-Times.
Is the USAT travel media group doing well? Haven't heard much of them for awhile. Without hotels as a distribution channel, are they relevant?
Like the Sports Media Group, they are simply getting the same business salespeople in the old structure used to get.....just much less of it. They have had no impact. In fact, they have only made things worse by creating massive sales channel conflict and confusion among our customers.
Gracia moves up ten spots: http://money.cnn.com/gallery/leadership/2013/10/10/50-most-powerful-women.fortune/35.html?iid=MPW13_fl_list
Re: 7:14 p.m.Don't you imagine there are probably even more Gannett journalists inclined to take to Twitter, Facebook, etc. to criticize the House GOP and rally behind the president and other Dems? I assume you find this equally objectionable, right?
7:14 here. I would find criticism of the shutdown just as objectionable. Newsroom employees should not be using social media to express political opinions.
Despite the "advice" of corporate to do other wise, I have separate personal and professional social media accounts. Under no circumstances would I express a political opinion of any kind on my professional account. That is called common sense and I don't need a policy to tell me that. My personal accounts are another story and here's why. My personal accounts divorced from the company and contains a disclaimer. Simply said, they are my own F**king business. I don't post political opinions about anyone I cover or have the potential to cover, including the governor and state legislature on my personal account. And that is where the company's concern should end. But it doesn't and that is what is intrusive. A co-worker at my site already has been disciplined for saying something negative about a boss on social media. As a little experiment, I googled myself. N-O-T-H-I-N-G from my personal social media accounts came up. My settings are for strictly friends. So what that means is management is either depending on a "rat" or spying directly, if you have friended any of your bosses. THAT is what the concern should be about, not a beat reporter in Podunk weighing in on a president they'll likely never cover. A survey on the news today said only 28% of those poll approve of what the GOP is doing in the shut down, so gosh golly, I wonder where peoples co-workers are on this issue? Doesn't take social media to figure that out. There is still a first amendment in this country, and corporations shouldn't be able to turn it on and off when it suits them. . Oops. Was that an opinion? I await the flames....
8:20 This is a question for you and for everyone else: If you only post opinions on your personal Facebook page, and you limit access to that page to your friends, should you then be able to post anything you want without fear of retribution from management?
8:20 is another person who has no idea what the First Amendment means.Read it. It says nothing about businesses.Your entire post collapses on that reality.
12:33 AM: Not just another person who has no idea what the First Amendment means, but a JOURNALIST, for crying out loud! Yikes.
If it's private, then nobody knows about it. Conversely, if your boss knows about it, then it ain't private.
8:20 - there have been successful court cases about free speech and retribution in the work place. Forgive me for not have the exact citations for you. And laws have been passed in several states barring employers from demanding an employees password or for them to "friend" the boss on social media to allow them to snoop. So I respectfully suggest you and 12:33 also do your homework. Unless of course you hold the opinion management can do anything to employees. And you both missed the crux, that they are seeking to regulate employee comment on social media OUTSIDE THE WORKPLACE by seeking to regulate what is said on your personal account, which would presumably take place on your own time and on your own device. And common sense should prevail, especially now that we know that management is "watching". @ Jim- since the social media policy took effect, I have been more than careful about what I post and I have blocked several likely "snitches" who have management ties. Of course with the change in FB and Twitter privacy policies, it appears everyone will be able to see everything, regardless of privacy settings, so the point may be moot and I'd advise people use common sense when posting, since obviously GCI has enough management to waste time reading our social media posts.
10:39, you should do your homework, starting with your own post. You refer to state laws. State laws are different than the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which you referred to originally.I'm sure there have been successful court cases, but those would likely be related to wrongful dismissal and not to the First Amendment -- again, making what you said originally to be incorrect.Your attempt to spin your lack of knowledge about the difference between the First Amendment and state laws by claiming that anyone who disagrees with your incorrect statements somehow supports no employee rights -- a common theme here at the blog -- is a noble attempt to cover your own mistake. But in the end, it only makes you look even more out of touch.
Want a splendid example of how USA Today is becoming irrelevant? Take a look at national sports sites' lead articles at this moment.ESPN: Detroit wins ALDSFox Sports: Detroit wins ALDSCBS Sports: Bears defeat GiantsYahoo! Sports: Detroit wins ALDSNBC Sports: Detroit wins ALDSUSA Today: Openly gay boxer defends title
Sports on Earth's home page has nothing at all about Detroit's win. Top baseball story is about the playoffs' final four, with this expert information in the home page teaser: "Two of them will advance (to the World Series) this year, but only one is going to walk away with the championship."
Great example! It's easy to spot when the people who don't understand sports are writing the teasers.Designers are just as bad. They are always fascinated by the number of teams in the playoffs and the fact that two teams end up playing for a title.
Gatehouse Media ,with hundreds of print publications, files bankruptcy.
The Gatehouse bankruptcy could be a precursor of what happens to Gannett's print division. Many, if not most, of the Gatehouse print pubs would have been able to stand up on their own, even thrive, were it not for the shakedown money they have to pay the vampire squid at corporate. The same goes for Gannett. Gannett sucks the lifeblood out of its papers. Its profit demands prevent the papers from investing in content and product. Gannett exists for two constituencies: its shareholders, who are paid 3.1 percent interest on their stock in return for keeping quiet; and its management, whose superfluousness is exceeded only by its greed.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Did you know Gannett buys newsprint at one price and marks it up when it sells it to its newspapers? Gannett sells its sites newsprint at around twice the price it pays for it.
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