An independent journal about the Gannett Co. and the news industry's digital transition
A poster yesterday claimed that Corporate's chief publicist since July 2009, Robin Pence, is no longer with the company.
So Jim, are you working to confirm this? Or repeating a gossip item? No offense, just curious why you would repost without advising if you are going to be "reporting" on it.
Hey Jim, I think somebody is being paid big bucks to butt heads with you. It's pretty funny.
My question was sincere, not meant to be confrontational. I am sincerely curious if this is fact or fiction, simple as that. Sorry Jim if the posters here would like to assume I'm attached in some way with GCI or Corporate.
Gannett employees are spineless.Why are you still working for this corporation?For three years you have known that the layoffs are a way of life.You are always on a list or soon to be on a list ,whether it be this round or the next round. I realize there is value in waiting for to be layed off and then receiving the unemployment,but is it worth the stress ?In three years you haven't found other employment? Have you lost all of your self-esteem and believe there is no other employment ever outside of Gannett?We ex-Gannetteers who have moved on long ago are curious.
"We ex-Gannetteers who have moved on long ago are curious."Then why are you still obsessing about the company and posting on a blog dedicated to the company?Someone hasn't moved on as much as they'd like to let on ...
10:20am appears to be under the assumption that its easy as flipping a switch to change jobs.
Pence is gone. An excellent move. Now, who is next in overpaid management?
Gannett is notorious for cutting cost and running papers into the ground without investing money in them. How about going back to regular newspaper carriers and local reporters. Plus maybe we could send a management team door to door to say we're sorry but we intend to change and improve our local product. That's not happening,so it is what it is ! We're in a digital world and once the age bracket of people actually reading the newspaper has passed, it won't get any better. Why would an advertiser use a newspaper and pay those rates when they can reach so many more people on cell phones and other applications.I think that anybody that works for Gannett realizes this and are just weighing their age against how many more years we will survive.
11:06: The complicated truth is the reason people advertise in print is that they get results from it. Not so much from the digital options. In time, that will change. But one of the realities of digital advertising is that if it REALLY worked, it would cost more.
11:03 When Martore was made CEO, I wrote: "Inevitably, many executives will use today's CEO change as reason to retire, either voluntarily or under pressure -- creating a company-wide ripple effect down the ranks."
USAT's Carol Stevens jumps ship: http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/romenesko/150065/usa-today-managing-editor-leaves-to-become-bar-association-media-relations-director/
Some clown got a big laugh at the point made that Times Mirror and Knight Ridder management, unlike Gannett, maximized value for shareholders by selling those companies before the big crash. But look at the facts: Times Mirror shareholders got $95 a share when Tribune bought it in 2000 -- double what TM shares were trading for at the time. TM shareholders had the option of taking $95 in cash or 2 1/2 shares of TRB, or about $38 a share. Sam Zell bought TRB in 2007 for $34 a share and took it private Knight Ridder shareholders also did very well. KRI sold itself to McClatchy in 2006 for $67.25 a share, of which $40 was in cash, the remaining $27.25 good for a half share in MNI, which was trading at $50 and change at the time. We know the rest of that story. MNI control was sold and went into bankruptcy. The stock still trades, but at a buck-fifty as of today. Gannett management could have delivered the same kind of payday had it sold, ideally seven years ago. GCI topped out at $91 in April 2004. Now that we know the debacle that is the GCI board's fiduciary responsibility to shareholders, that $91 would have been a very, very nice price to get. Throw in a 20 percent premium, and the payoff would have been $110.
Poynter reporting USA Today departure: Carol Stevens, who has worked at USA Today for 14 years, is leaving her post as managing editor/news of the Gannett paper to become the media relations director for the American Bar Association. http://bit.ly/onDQbJ
11:37 wrote: "MNI control was sold and went into bankruptcy."I don't understand what you mean.
Digital advertising will start working when it becomes all video...and then it will priced like TV. At the end of the day static banner ads are bad. Steve Jobs, CEO of a digital powerhouse never used digital ads. He used Print and TV.He was quoted once as saying "digital ads don't work because they suck"The big digital revenue generator right now is SEARCH...not banner ads.
got for the one's to get out, it was their choice and not wait for the trolls to drop the hammer on them. the only thing they misted on is canning them, i know the managers enjoy telling a value long time employee, your done..call hr for the rest of your information. Your just a used number now..good luck and thanks for your years of service, if not for you I would not be making my huge salary today. Good riddance
10:20 - Your daily posts used to make me wonder "what is wrong with this person?" Then, they made me feel bad for you as only someone with serious self-esteem issues and real lack of self-worth would come on here DAILY and disparage others who have done nothing to him/her. Now, I enjoy your posts as you've become the perfect illustration of the fact that no matter how bad things may ever become health, employment, personal relationships, etc.) at least I'm not as pathetic as "that guy/girl on Gannett Blog." - another Ex-Gannetter who is doing really, really well but who feels bad for those who remain but yearn for something better.
For some ex-Ganetters, "moving on" is not so easy as it sounds.Some of us had our careers ruined by terrible Gannett publishers and managers who's pettiness and corporate butt-kissing saw many good people thrown under the bus for the sake of their own jobs/advancement/favor.Many of who remain bitter and angry by our poor treatment - regardless of how long it has been - wait patiently and continue to check this and similar blogs to see if those terrible bosses have somehow, some way been: fired, sued, demoted, exposed or humiliated.Over the years, every now and then it has actually happened, and some idiot we used to work for (or along side) finally got the boot for their miseable lack of any measurable skills.Sadly, those have been rare.But there is some satisfaction in seeing this dreadful company self-destruct. And also knowing how many of its present employees hate Gannett with a passion. Join the club."Getting on with it" is tough when you were fired or quit without resolution of the very issues that led to your leaving.
JIm why did you remove the 6:56am post? I drive a forklift and wanted to know the point of the posts I was referring to.
I meant to say MNI "flirted with bankruptcy."
Seeking Alpha contributor Nick Pollari just ran this piece called "Gannett is Becoming Obsolete."Several months ago I wrote a positive article about Gannett (GCI) assessing an approximately $14 price target. Since then we have reassessed our models, made some adjustments, and taken into consideration the recent earnings GCI has posted.We have moved GCI from our “Buy” list to our “Sell” list for the following reasons. Total revenue from a year earlier is down 3.5% as ad spending and publications continue to be in a negative trend. As firms switch to digital platforms and more mobile advertising Gannett will struggle to maintain its industry dominance. The truth of the matter is that over a long-term investment horizon, Gannett is offering products that will be obsolete in the future.Publication circulation revenues have fallen about 3% for the first 6 months of 2011, while ad revenue has been reduced by 6%. Our view of a low growth environment for the current foreseeable future reinforces our belief that in uncertain times, companies are less likely to spend frivolously on ads and marketing. GCI Selling/General expenses have increased to $295M from a year previous, but have not generated additional revenue. GCI EPS is down 17% from a year earlier.Gannett has a staggering amount of debt: $2B in long-term debt and another $1B in pension and healthcare for employees. Its robust cash flow production is the only real positive for the firm. The first problem is that with such expansive debt and declining revenues, GCI will likely have to be conservative on its dividend to help pay down debt. The second problem with the cash flow is that one of its main drivers of revenue, the publication USA Today, is down from around 2.3M subscribers in 2008 to 1.8M in 2010. That decrease of around 20% should be enough to show you that GCI will be struggling to maintain its earnings in the future.Many investors have been looking to GCI to benefit from political ad spending. It should be known that the growing trend of mobile and online advertising is probably better slated to capture most of that ad spending. Our conclusion is that GCI is stuck between a rock and a hard place. The fundamentals are clearly beginning to break down. We believe that over a 3- to 5-year period, this company is going to be cutting dividends, which will in turn force the stock price to suffer significantly.Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, but may initiate a short position in GCI over the next 72 hours.
At least they got rid of Tom Callinan last year. He's trying to maintain his prestige as a University of Cincinnati instructor with a pompous title.
11:06: The complicated truth is the reason people advertise in print is that they get results from it. Not so much from the digital options. In time, that will change. But one of the realities of digital advertising is that if it REALLY worked, it would cost more.10/19/2011 11:21 AMUmm.....digital does work, just not in the way that companies that are not digital expect it to work. Gannett is a print driven business, their whole model is built on that from the massive amount of human capital and brick and mortar infrastructure to get the product out (that costs a fortune and digital does not provide enough revenue for them to ever become profitable with the enterprise. Google and others are extremely successful because that is their business model and everything they do is built around that model and in doing so can drive huge amounts of revenue and profits. If Gannett discarded all of their print business and held onto just their TV and digital business they might actually have a chance. But again, they are up against a brick wall because their digital business is too tightly interwoven with the print side of the business that you can't undo it without killing the company. Example say you want to sell USA Today, but keep the website, well anyone who buys USA Today also wants the website. So basically Gannett is stuck in a perpetual spiral into oblivion. Unfortunately this could have all be avoided if they had invested towards the future instead of just getting by quarter by quarter.
2:17 Unless Callinan has some kind of endowed faculty position, he's probably making peanuts as an instructor. If he is not fulltime at university he may not be getting health insurance. But he probably cut a deal with Big G on getting COBRA paid for some time. If he saved well, it's an OK bridge to retirement and lets you look like you're still a big wheel in journalism.
What's going on with John Misner? He doesn't seem to get print at all, but is responsible for all sales functions here in Phoenix.
Gannett has no excuse for how it treats it's current employees that actually are trying to put out a quality print product. Unfortunately for us. We are stuck with these low life managers who still get off on trying to belittle the employees they should be encouraging.
I'm with 1:03. I'm a former Gannett employee, and I follow the company because I'm concerned about the steady, unrelenting decline in the journalism in my community and others as this company cuts staff in order to sustain high profit margins. I also hate to see what my former publication has become - a shell of its old self. I also still find myself following Gannett because it's like watching a slow-motion wreck on the freeway. I can't take my eyes off it, sad as it may be. I also keep wondering what the "vision" is in Virginia, other than cutting costs to keep up short-term profits and hoping that one of the many "initiatives" will save the company. I'm also wondering when the board of directors will figure out that those huge corporate salaries and bonuses are a bigger and bigger piece of the company's costs - and that they are unsustainable as a digital operation. My favorite headline today: "Gannett is becoming obsolete" http://seekingalpha.com/article/300565-gannett-is-becoming-obsoleteSadly, it's true.
Cut Callinan a break. When he was editor, he cared about a good story. Unlike the current editor, he knew the capital of Vermont was Montpelier and not Burlington. He also didn't love to hear himself pontificate like the new boss does. He loved discussing journalism. He was sadled by the Queen up on the 20th floor.
4:32, nicely said. I'm in the same position.
So who are the directors/manager laid off at your paper, the not less than 20 in the last company post concerning the new unit (Gannette so Production Services)No body at my site..whats the deal. And so we have an understanding who the 1% of the new unit will be let go by the end of 2011.Merry Christmas, your gone
Interesting article about Gannett.http://seekingalpha.com/article/300565-gannett-is-becoming-obsolete?source=yahoo
4:31 this post is so true, it was just like that when I left six months ago. So sad. Management sucks it consists of a bunch of---nothings!!
Media General says all their properties are profitable, except for those in Florida. http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/romenesko/150109/media-general-reports-profits-in-all-markets-but-florida/
Good post-4:32. Also brings to mind all the wasteful money Gannett spent on its branding campaign; look how that's gone down the drain.
Some third-world entities destroy journalism by requiring licensing, forcing closure of publications that don't tow the party line, and imprisoning the content creators.America just has Gannett.
A photo gallery on Wausau's site showing the mouth-to-mouth resuscitation of a dog caught in a house fire got a link on Drudge, which will spike their hits:http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/article/20111019/WDH0101/110190645/Family-dogs-cats-OK-after-fire-Wausau-s-west-side?odyssey=tab|topnews|img|FRONTPAGE
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The primary issue at Gannett is the very simple concept of corporate stewardship. The C-suite has confused leadership with the titles they have rather than the responsibility they hold. The C-level jobs are approved and appointed by the BOD, and frankly, its time for a shareholder revolt against a very out of touch board.
I couldn't agree more, 6:48. How do we organize that?
8:43, you won't. No one here will organize anything. You will keep posting anonymous comments that accomplish nothing.That's the way it's been for three years (minus Jim's "vacation"), and that's the way it always will be. Accept it and move on.
6:48 demonstrates what is wrong with many of our colleagues. Stage a shareholder revolt. So how does one do that when a huge majority of shares are owned by institutional investors. You could put all the privately held shares in one account and you still wouldn't create a blip in the financial sector. Geez folks learn about your own business and hiw it works before you get all "occupy wall street"
Occupy Gannett Newspapers.Now there's an oxymoron.
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.