An independent journal about the Gannett Co. and the news industry's digital transition
Everybody connected to the salesof papers and mostin production know that the Sunday before a Holiday there are no coupons in the Sunday paper. Today, however, in our great paper, is printed in a nice box on the front page..."Coupons Inside Today". Say what? Are we trying to P.. off the rest of the population that buys the paper...especially now with the coupon craze? Pity the poor carrier who will have to listen to "where's my coupons? The paper said there's "coupons inside". Better yet...if a store pulls them aside and doesn't sell them thinking they are incomplete...it's happened! Good call!
Probably the person who was in charge of changing the coupon notice on the front page had their job eliminated and no one else knew about changing for the holiday
www.dealchicken.com offers coupons
And according to a story in USAT on the decline of coupon deal sites, dealChicken has .6% of the market - who needs a daily paper, let's sell the presses. Hey! We're in the top 10!http://www.usatoday.com/money/news/retail/story/2011-08-31/Websites-selling-daily-deals-lose-some-luster/50207872/1
Coupons come in all forms. I see coupons in regular ROP ads, sales flyers for the likes of Office Depot, Lowes etc. Someone is stretching to find something to bitch about.
I love how Jim, who once posted a personal photo of Rudd Davis clowning around with some friends as evidence of his supposed incompetence, is otherwise protective of other USAT "content" managers.So specific comments about a notoriously callous manager is deleted as "overkill" but that old photo was fair game?
By all mean, vague grumbling about coupons and non-specific complaints about management are welcome, but get too pointed and that's unwelcome? Jim, people are already afraid to comment here out of fear they'll be found out somehow. Why are you stifling serious watercooler talk that we can't have at work, and now apparently can't have here? I am all for removing personal attacks, but criticism of a specific manager's way of conducting business is not that.
I was a Cincinnati Enquirer subscriber for years. No longer. There hasn't been any meat in it for a while.So it was particularly disheartening to go onto the web site and see a big promotion about tonight's fireworks and what I'll see and hear. Goodness, i will see and hear the fireworks timed to music in pretty much the same fashion I've b een seeing them for decades. What a waste of time. Then, I turned to see Enquirer 9/ll anniversary coverage. Much to my surprise I found stories from U.S. Today and the reporters who work for the Enquirer weeklies. In the old says, the staff at Enquirer would have produced a hell of a section and not used the stuff from USA Today. If I wanted that I'd subscribe to it.
12:34 I removed five comments about USA Today Executive Editor Susan Weiss that were repetitive. And I removed three in support of her because they, too, were repetitive.Also, to be precise, I never posted a photo of Rudd Davis; I linked to a photo on another website. Several readers then identified Davis as one of the people in the photo. (After my post, the photo was removed from that website.)
Jim: Don't let the trolls get you down. You're doing God's work here.
So the comments were "repetitive." Really. And space on this blog is just, what, too precious for that.So we can look forward to deletion of all the repetitive Deal Chicken comments, etc?And you didn't "post" the Rudd photo. You just "linked" to it.Come on.
Jim; I usually am a strong supporter, but your selective deletion of comments is quite odd, in this case. You haven't been at the paper for going on four years, you know nothing of the direct impact, or lack of, of any manager at USA Today, especially post transformation. I found the comments, in the context of others directed at various managers, non offensive and not repetitive. Especially in light of the haranges others receive on this blog. I hope you will reconsider and repost. I did not post notes critical of Ms. Weiss, but they do provide insight and observation into her management style and that of others.
Jim's sandbox, his rules: Geebus Crust, what part of that DON'T you understand?If he wants to change what stays or goes on a daily basis and run all the text in hot orange and fluorescent green, more power to him. I'm no wordsmith, but bitching about a site you don't pay for... run by a man you don't know... that allows comments from other people you don't know... regarding executives they don't know... working for a company that doesn't care about your opinion either... has got to be the epitome of something. Pull that broomstick out of there and enjoy an afternoon flight.
Couldn’t agree with you more 1:10 PM as I’m continually amazed by how the Enquirer increasingly squanders what little, shrinking newshole it has left. Today’s print edition continued to disappoint, more so in that it had a non-breaking, feature prominently placed on the front page with jumps inside all of which was posted online yesterday. Why do this if it isn't breaking? Moves like these is exactly why we stopped subscribing to the print edition years ago (Buchanan said no one would) and why we only pick up a print copy occasionally now and even that is done less and less given reminders like what we read today.Equally as bad, if not more, was that the feature story on Cincinnati’s "rising" safety was poorly done. It noticeably excluded data that would have downplayed what it asserts and it likely alienated suburbanites in highly desired areas that the Enquirer needs because of what it questionably asserts about the areas they live all of which is just one more reason for many to ignore the Enquirer even more.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
2:34 Editing comments is like editing a story: I strive for consistency, and to never be arbitrary. But it's not a science. I've got to make a lot of judgement calls. Inevitably, people will disagree -- especially when I'm editing for a group of more than 10,000 monthly readers. I never dismiss reader concerns out of hand. And I'll always try to do a better job next time.
Regarding a post at 3:47:I remove comments advocating violence, including those urging people to kill themselves. I would hope that's a given, but I just had to remove one.Moreover, comments like those may lead to a late-night visit on your doorstep from law-enforcement folks. (Exhibit A.)
Nice scare tactic, Jim, but you are the insane one here. Just look at the past history.You'll be in a padded room by the end of 2012. Mark my words. BTW, nutcase, how'd that situation from a month ago turn out? Have you been subpoenaed yet?
You block all the good stuff Jim. I understand it is your blog, but people are frustrated and want to vent. This is that spot. You blocked a post from me this morning concerning The Western Ave. Production site, why? It was all the truth, no bull, just straight from me who worked at that plant and for that union. Are you so pro union Jim, you remove a post when a person blasts that union?
6:09 I'm neither pro- nor anti union. To answer your question, your comment called people "morons." I remove comments that include that word -- something I noted several days ago. I'm sorry if you missed that.
Have you ever thought that Gannett newspapers are purposely getting worse? Just a tease to get someone to go online- that is where they really want the eyeballs. On another note- I agree, Jim can make the rules about what stays and what goes. His blog- his rules.
Good call on removing posts with the word "moron." While you're at it, please consider removing all posts with the word "insane." These are sure signs of abusive posters. I know you advise us to ignore them, but it would be so much less tedious for everyone if you would just delete them. No one would fault you for it -- with the exception of the abusive posters, who can't seem to express themselves without name-calling.
I'd like to offer a word of support for Jim's recent actions here.Consistency in the blog is a good thing, but the blog also needs to grow and frankly, get smarter. But it can't get smarter if every crazed comment is allowed to stand in a company tar-and-feather free-for-all. It's time for the Gannett Blog to grow up.There's an opportunity for Jim Hopkins to build a true industry-wide destination site, using the lessons -- mistakes and all -- that he's made here during the two-plus years of the Gannett Blog.One lesson is that allowing character assassination to run rampant just makes an unpleasant sideshow. Controlling the blog environment may wipe away some of the "fun" -- like a car wreck, many people come here solely to watch people we don't know get called bitches, crooks, drunks and charlatans. (And when it is people we do know, we usually think, gee, that person's not as bad as they are saying).But agree with the personal attacks or not, they totally undercut any serious efforts to assess what's really happening in the company.I think Jim doesn't go far enough. Calling people "morons" adds nothing to a debate, and Jim should set even harder groundrules. That's not censorship. As he says, it is called editing.Gannett for sure is teetering near disaster, much of it self-imposed. The leadership is distant, the intiatives are late and weak, the company's focus is totally gone. Panic rules.But that does not mean the Gannett Blog needs to be a broadsheet for the lunatic fringe. It is possible to discuss Gannett, leadership, even personalities in ways that are not so mean-spirited and outright ugly and absurd that any fair-minded person doesn't simply shudder and think, "what a bunch of losers."The Gannett Blog has only just begun, and if we all treat it with more respect, and let Jim find his way in controlling things more intelligently, it might really become a force for good. Not only in the company, but in the industry as well.Less name-calling and more facts would go a long way to getting there.
Great post, 7:24.But it won't happen, and Jim Hopkins is to blame. He is a nutball. He's had a long time to delete the rumors, the crap-throwing, and the total bullshit. He lets it go.As long as people like 6:03 and 6:37 are here, this place won't improve. Every time someone calls Jim on his B.S., lemming trolls like those two show up to polish the boots.Enough already. Stop defending the stupidity.
7:32, posts like yours are just as big a part of the problem as the "trolls" you identify.Everyone should cool out and let Jim figure out a way to "reset" the place.No, it may not be fair to the way it was before, and no, I don't agree with how Jim has run the blog at all. It's been a stupid mess. Yes.But it can be better for the future. I'm willing to let Jim try.
A woman was found dead in a river lake just a couple miles from the Courier-Post building yet not one word about this on their website today. Yet, they had room to run photos of girls at bars.
Jim, your deletion of comments seem to be too aggressive. You are certainly crossing over back to the dark side of Gannett wishes. I thought this blog allowed some constructive criticism of Gannett executives. I think you are losing some balls when it comes to criticizing executives. You are prohibiting individuals the ability to vent.
7:39, he's not trying. That's the point. He hasn't been trying for quite a while.9:27, you have a strange idea of what "constructive criticism" means. In fact, I doubt you know what it means.
You are prohibiting individuals the ability to vent. --------------------Is that what this place should be? Somewhere to shout and accuse and just say it loud enough so it becomes the "truth"?Hell, go post on Twitter or something.Most of us have had enough of shouting and "venting." Gets nowhere.
I Understand Jim. Thank you for the blog and letting us post comments. It is a good forum for information. Thanks again for your time and effortThe Happy Pressmen
Please add "nutball," "nutcase" and "lemming trolls" to the list, hurled by one person with a tragic inability to express himself in an adult and dignified manner. He's nothing but an irritant (not to be confused with Socrates' gadfly on the body politic) who wants to disrupt the dialogue.He needs to get a clue that his posts are being mentally deleted by people looking for substance, not simian raging and feces-throwing. Please, Jim, just do us a favor so we don't have to go through the effort of identifying his posts and delete, delete, delete at the outset.
Jim,this really is simple: Run the blog fairly, consistently and inform us. Oyherwise, dont do it. Just do it right, without excuses. You want to be a player? Good. Bring a steady hand and consistent standards. Cut the crap, like, "ooooh, I missed that comment that should have come down." Do it right or go away. Be accountable.
I'd rather see pix of girls in bars than a dead body in a car.
To delete or not to delete that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to sufferThe slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,And by opposing end them?
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.