Post links and share news

[Gannettoid]

The speculation of July layoffs throughout Gannett have been a hot topic on the Gannett Blog, on our forum and in tips we've received. Some believe publishers have already submitted names for approval and many seem to be hearing 10% as the number again for locations for what needs cut.

If you know of something and want to prove how you know it before sharing it with colleagues, e-mail us at news@gannettoid.com to discuss it.

Please share information or use this forum to vent or ask questions.


My Boss said ... are you there?

[thecanzun]

Hello to all my fellow Gannetters. Here in Phoenix we have heard nothing even unofficially about layoffs. About all we have heard, and that's just amongst our peers, is that there won't be any more furloughs. In the last go-round of layoffs in December, we were told at least two weeks out that the ax was going to fall. Management had at least one staff meeting to discuss the procedures and to (try to) allay fears. That, however, was after two rounds of buyouts had already trimmed our staff by several dozen. Those who took the buyout are the lucky ones...
With 18 days left before the supposed July 8 ax date, we haven't heard a peep from management. Perhaps they will start talking next week.
Why are layoffs being considered at this time, when a glimmer of hope appears on the horizon for the economy? Is it because Gannett has a huge debt deadline looming, and wasn't managed well enough to foresee it? Dubow gets his medical leave, with pay and benefits intact, while the poor working stiffs get dumped on the bread line.
Although Phoenix's home-construction-based economy and the paper's revenues have taken a hit in the recession, people still want our product. The Republic recently had increases in daily circulation (in part because of the demise of the East Valley Tribune in Mesa) and reached the top 10 in Sunday circulation. Both accomplishments were much ballyhooed, as they should be. The bottom line is, people still want their daily newspaper. But for how much longer, considering the way we're being whittled away?
We recently merged some of our glossy quarterly magazines (which are handled by the news staffers, not separate staffs) and dropped one weekly giveaway that was ill-advisedly launched at the first of the year. A few weeks ago, a Friday features section was dropped and our fashion insert was changed from high-quality paper stock to newsprint and will be incorporated into the Friday features section.
Even with those changes, a staff that already is near the breaking point has plenty to do. There certainly aren't any pikers in my section, and the loafers in other sections have survived many years and are unlikely to be outed now. Management recently indicated that they want more eyes on the on-line content without sacrificing the quality of the print side -- which is the only part of the company that is making a dime, and the only part that will be making a dime in the foreseeable future.
My question: Why are we being asked to do even more with even less when readers actually WANT the newspaper? I don't have the figures, but I've been told that The Republic continues to make double-digit profits, so why screw the pooch at a time when readership is growing, not declining? If the economy ever does bounce back, does management actually think readers will return if they've been getting an increasingly inferior product over the past year or two?
One other question: If online is our future, why does Gannett insist on the "one size fits all" approach to search-engine technology? I and many others have a very difficult time finding anything on azcentral.com, a website that has been around for more than 10 years. The only way to find anything onsite is to Google it and add "azcentral" to the search. I once searched for a restaurant and was told there was nothing on the site, although by scrolling down the page I found the article i was looking for at the bottom! When i mentioned this to our online staff, i was told it had something to do with the program that Gannett makes us use. Does anyone know if this is true and, if so, why it is that way?
Good luck to us all.

[Topa]

You wrote the million dollar question: Why are we being asked to do even more with even less when readers actually WANT the newspaper?

Watching the self-imposed downward spiral of Gannett is painful - this said with duct tape over my mouth because you know as well as I do management wants "yes men and women" and they don't want to hear: Why are you doing that? Our readership is basically rural and people over the age of 50. They love their newspapers. Everyone loves their local newspapers.

If they (Gannett management) were savy, and you think they would be, being in the business of journalism, that would ask for employee input - instead they continue to slash and plunder with unfounded mandates, like pushing free Web sites, then counting the hits as if it is manna from heaven. PULEASE! How ignorant.

Our readers can't call and say they didn't get their newspaper, they are diverted to a call in line in another "CENTRAL LOCATION" city. Thailand maybe, who knows. Our advertiser can't get ad proof turnaround like they used to because it's shipped off to a central creative headquarters, where mistakes are rampant. Nothing works efficiently anymore, in the name of efficiency.

Our pages are cookie-cutter, mass-produced at the CENTRAL pagination center. Our photgraphers have no control over photo-processing.

Everything takes triple the time to do because communication, if that is even possible anymore, is spread over long distances.

I long for the days when I first started in the newsroom, where everything was hands on, when decisions about the next day's paper were argued over and last minute changes didn't have to go through an endless maze of bullshit.

Stress is so thick in the newsroom, you can cut it with Neuwirth's tongue.

It's like watching a suicide happen.

[Guest]

Anyone with information going to provide some??? Please! It's obvious some people at my site know some details, so if you do, don't make everyone else feel shut out.

[koolaid kid]

This was posted on Gannett blog:

I may have called B.S. too soon on a comment earlier today by Anonymous@9:41 p.m.

Gannett has just scheduled its second-quarter earnings release for July 15, which puts the comment in better context. Here it is again:

The magic number is 4,623 on July 15.

6/22/2009 10:48 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim, we'll see. But they already know how dreadful the numbers are, including ad revenue down 40 percent at some sites, so why wait to axe people until the day the numbers are released? Such a specific number is doubtful, too, since they're paring revenue site by site.

But, we shall see. All my sources say July 8.

6/22/2009 2:00 PM

[Unknown]

As a manager who has been asked to make cuts, I can say that I've been told July 8 is the day. I don't know the numbers overall, but it's big at my site, I think above 10 percent. Names went to group two weeks ago, and group was supposed to turn them around quickly to corporate, so yes, corporate has the list of names.

[Guest]

Unknown @ 6:30, Can you say what Gannett property you are at?

[Jennifer]

Were any particular departments targeted or does it seem to be a random sweep?

[Guest]

I think “My Boss“ will only reply to Jim. Don't think, he/she, feels he/she can trust you.

The speculation of July layoffs throughout Gannett have been a hot topic on the Gannett Blog, on our forum and in tips we've received. Some believe publishers have already submitted names for approval and many seem to be hearing 10% as the number again for locations for what needs cut.

If you know of something and want to prove how you know it before sharing it with colleagues, e-mail us at news@gannettoid.com to discuss it.

Please share information or use this forum to vent or ask questions.


My Boss said ... are you there?

[unknown]

I'd rather not say where I am, since I need my job. I've also heard from a contact at corporate that they are losing some very good people, too.

[Guest]

I appreciate your honesty. And I understand. There is a manager at my site, that I think is a terrific manager, but not my manager. I've seen that “look” in his eyes the past few days. He is usually very friendly and happy to chat. Not this week. I feel bad for him, because I think he is a good guy. I understand he has a family he has to worry about but I also think he really cares. I don't envy any good manager to have to tell an employee he truly knows is a good worker, good-bye. I'm sorry you have been put in this position. I hope none of your employees blame you for this decision since it is out of your hands. Just remember to let them know that “YOU” thought they were good workers. It may lessen the blow.

I'd rather not say where I am, since I need my job. I've also heard from a contact at corporate that they are losing some very good people, too.

[Guest]

@ 6:30:

I wasn't necessarily trying to get an exact location, but maybe a region you are from. That would be just fine with me.

Thanks

[Anon]

Not a layoff but..

June 23, 2009





Dear colleague,


While many are cautiously optimistic that the worst of this economic downturn will soon be over, the broadcast industry continues to feel the effects. The decline in the auto industry alone – once about 30 percent of our division’s ad business – is a major challenge for us. And that’s just one example of the changes we are seeing.

I believe it’s clear there will be a permanent reset of the American economy on the other side of the economic storm. On top of that, our industry has been impacted by the revolution in the way people consume media and the way advertisers try to reach them.

Even so, our division’s financial results continue to be at the top of the industry. With your help, ideas, and some tough choices, we have made important and innovative strides in how we allocate resources to best serve our viewers, communities and advertisers, on any and all platforms.

These efforts, combined with some proactive financial decisions, will help us stay strong. In effect, we have to have our own “reset” to match the changes in the broadcasting business. As a result, we are making the following changes in compensation for employees making $30,000 or more in order to reduce costs and minimize the need for additional job-related actions in the future.

Effective July 1, for:

Employees making $30,000 to $39,999, compensation is reduced 4%.


Employees making $40,000 to $49,999, compensation is reduced 5%.

Employees making $50,000 and higher, compensation is reduced 6%.



The salary reduction will be calculated from your base annual salary. More details are included in the attached fact sheet. Again, employees making less than $30,000 are not affected.

I want to thank you for the sacrifices you are making, and for the support you’ve provided each other during these difficult times I encourage you to talk with your managers about this change, and please feel free to contact me to discuss this or any other issues of importance to you.

[Gannettoid]

Here's a tip someone submitted anonymously at about 1:45 p.m. today:

wtsp, tampa here. just announced: at this station no more furloughs, no layoffs but will be salary reductions - tiered based on compensation levels. Lougee email coming out approx 2peastern.

[burialsquad]

Specifically to the Arizona Republic poster at the top, but also to everyone in general: let's not go melodramatic on the economy - that's an excuse to help Gannett explain how they managed to make such astronomical mistakes and drive the business into the ground. The Republic, up top, said publishers have focused on online content because it's "the only thing that makes a dime these days." That's not true, and never let them say that! The printed product is still fantastically profitable (especially in Phoenix where they don't hesitate to sell the actual masthead to advertisesrs - Coldstone/Kohls/Taylor Morrison Republic, anyone?). The problem isn't with the profitability of the organization, it's with the way that profit has been managed: poorly. When news companies started making less money than before (say, 12 percent profits instead of 20 percent), they completely mishandled business opportunities and overestimated their ability to remain relevant to audiences and shareholders alike. Now, we're all effed. We're going to get laid off, or we're not - that much is clear. The problem is, for those who don't lose their jobs, what the hell are we going to do to keep this thing from collapsing? It's becoming clear that new ideas, unless born in the brain of the people at the very top, won't ever be put to use. Broken strategies, like one commenter's observation that the web sites suck or that long-distance content is stupid, evidently won't ever be fixed. Revenue plans fell apart when Gannett's decision to pander to advertisers rather than serve readers backfired when advertisers realized who had the upper hand.

I know we're in a recession, and we have retirement to think about, and having job security is important, and it's all very scary, but I can't help but wonder:

If you don't get laid off, why the hell would you want to stay?

[Dr. Syn]

Effective July 1, for:

Employees making $30,000 to $39,999, compensation is reduced 4%.


Employees making $40,000 to $49,999, compensation is reduced 5%.

Employees making $50,000 and higher, compensation is reduced 6%.



And do you want to tell us where this memo is from?

[Anon]

Dave Lougee sent it to all in the Broadcast Division on Tuesday afternoon.

[Dr. Syn]

Dave Lougee sent it to all in the Broadcast Division on Tuesday afternoon.

Thanks. Context does help.

[Anon]

Thanks for your wisdom Doc.

[JAFO]

So What was the BIG announcement for a Jersey Paper today ? Or is this another prime example of someone thinking they now something and not knowing squat. And then you wonder how rumors get started