Gannett joins the club?

[whatwoulddamondo?]

Where you gonna put the paid obits in a four-page wrap?

Or classifieds.

[Mizzougrad96]

I'm sure Gannett will stop its plan that will save them millions over prep sports, obits and classifieds... 

[Ace]

I'm sure Gannett will stop its plan that will save them millions over prep sports, obits and classifieds... 

If killing local newspapers will save them millions, why not just pull the plug on all of them and save even more?

No way in hell this plan would make money.

[whatwoulddamondo?]

I'm sure Gannett will stop its plan that will save them millions over prep sports, obits and classifieds... 

sorry, db, classifieds and obits (especially obits) still make a small fortune.

[dog428]

Here are some facts: The Gannett paper nearest me raked in $12 million in profits last year. That was a 28.8% profit margin. (And yeah, I've seen the paperwork on it.)

You give those numbers to a private owner, the sumbitch is ecstatic. But in the world of Gannett (and all corporate-owned papers), this paper is being forced to cut 19 positions and 10 employees. The budget has been slashed to levels that make it virtually impossible to do quality work. And the "The End is Near" speeches are included in every memo.

There is no one -- not here or anywhere else -- who will ever be able to convince me that newspapers will die. It simply will not happen. They are the ONLY source for large segments of information that people need and want. And those people are absolutely willing to pay for it.

The problem is large corporations have sucked all the local flavor from these publications and tried to make all papers abide by the same set of rules and guidelines. It doesn't work. That, along with the astounding lack of foresight when it comes to the Internet, is what's killing newspapers. It has nothing to do with supply and demand. It has everything to do with pathetic management and borderline corrupt business practices.

I would bet a lot of money that almost anyone with a sliver of common sense could take over one of these Gannett papers tomorrow and do quite well for decades to come.

[BTExpress]

Here are some facts: The Gannett paper nearest me raked in $12 million in profits last year. That was a 28.8% profit margin. (And yeah, I've seen the paperwork on it.)

Operating profit margin? Or net profit margin?

Gannett carries about $4.3 billion in debt. That $12 million may not be enough to cover that paper's share of any principal and interest it owes.

[Mizzougrad96]

The obits will cover that debt.

[whatwoulddamondo?]

The obits will cover that debt.

given how small our newsroom is nowadays as the cuts continue, the obits (usually a couple hundred a pop, and we have about 10 per day) are covering all of the newsroom's salaries.

[Green_Lantern]

Just thinking. If Gannett shut down a paper, should the rest of the Gannett papers run a story bout it in obits?

[Drip]

Just thinking. If Gannett shut down a paper, should the rest of the Gannett papers run a story bout it in obits?

If Gannett begins shutting down papers, I think a lot of people had better start applying for other gigs.

[Ace]

Just thinking. If Gannett shut down a paper, should the rest of the Gannett papers run a story bout it in obits?

It would have to pay for it.

[Frank_Ridgeway]

I'd be very surprised if this rumor about the wraparounds is true. While it's true the industry repeatedly recycles ideas that were tried and failed 10-40 years earlier, I doubt Gannett would do this one. Long as Al Neuharth is alive, he'd say to anyone willing to listen, "Ya know, we had this same kind of idea in 1985. Took most of the national and international news out of the Brevard paper, renamed it Florida Today and told readers they ought to subscribe to USA Today for national and international news. The idea didn't work. Most of them didn't want USA Today. The people who DID want USA Today were already buying it." No doubt Gannett isn't immune from making the same mistake twice, but I really doubt they'd make this one again. There are too many people in the company who know company history.

[Drip]

I'd be very surprised if this rumor about the wraparounds is true. While it's true the industry repeatedly recycles ideas that were tried and failed 10-40 years earlier, I doubt Gannett would do this one. Long as Al Neuharth is alive, he'd say to anyone willing to listen, "Ya know, we had this same kind of idea in 1985. Took most of the national and international news out of the Brevard paper, renamed it Florida Today and told readers they ought to subscribe to USA Today for national and international news. The idea didn't work. Most of them didn't want USA Today. The people who DID want USA Today were already buying it." No doubt Gannett isn't immune from making the same mistake twice, but I really doubt they'd make this one again. There are too many people in the company who know company history.

Frank, I remember that failed idea but many of those who know company history may think they have figured out an idea to make it work the second time around.

[Mizzougrad96]

The readers wouldn't have a choice in the matter this time.

The Florida Today idea was one of the worst ever, like people are just going to start getting a second newspaper.

[Ace]

The readers wouldn't have a choice in the matter this time.

The Florida Today idea was one of the worst ever, like people are just going to start getting a second newspaper.

Seriously, if Gannett does that I bet it will spike delivery of the New York Times more than anything. That's what I would do if it was available.

[Mizzougrad96]

The readers wouldn't have a choice in the matter this time.

The Florida Today idea was one of the worst ever, like people are just going to start getting a second newspaper.

Seriously, if Gannett does that I bet it will spike delivery of the New York Times more than anything. That's what I would do if it was available.

That's what I would do too... But we're not your average reader. The average reader loves the simplicity that is USA Today. It's sad, but true...

[Bubbler]

Here are some facts: The Gannett paper nearest me raked in $12 million in profits last year. That was a 28.8% profit margin. (And yeah, I've seen the paperwork on it.)

You give those numbers to a private owner, the sumbitch is ecstatic. But in the world of Gannett (and all corporate-owned papers), this paper is being forced to cut 19 positions and 10 employees. The budget has been slashed to levels that make it virtually impossible to do quality work. And the "The End is Near" speeches are included in every memo.

There is no one -- not here or anywhere else -- who will ever be able to convince me that newspapers will die. It simply will not happen. They are the ONLY source for large segments of information that people need and want. And those people are absolutely willing to pay for it.

The problem is large corporations have sucked all the local flavor from these publications and tried to make all papers abide by the same set of rules and guidelines. It doesn't work. That, along with the astounding lack of foresight when it comes to the Internet, is what's killing newspapers. It has nothing to do with supply and demand. It has everything to do with pathetic management and borderline corrupt business practices.

I would bet a lot of money that almost anyone with a sliver of common sense could take over one of these Gannett papers tomorrow and do quite well for decades to come.

I mostly agree with you, dog. But the other day I was thinking as I crossed over some rusty train tracks on an abandoned right-of-way ...

In the 1950s and 1960s, nearly every city that has currenly a daily newspaper had passenger railroad service. I'm guessing the notion that passenger railroad service would be wiped out, even in many large cities, was considered unthinkable back then.

Those of us in newspapers need to consider that when considering the future, if we have one.

[Walter Burns]

Here are some facts: The Gannett paper nearest me raked in $12 million in profits last year. That was a 28.8% profit margin. (And yeah, I've seen the paperwork on it.)

You give those numbers to a private owner, the sumbitch is ecstatic. But in the world of Gannett (and all corporate-owned papers), this paper is being forced to cut 19 positions and 10 employees. The budget has been slashed to levels that make it virtually impossible to do quality work. And the "The End is Near" speeches are included in every memo.

There is no one -- not here or anywhere else -- who will ever be able to convince me that newspapers will die. It simply will not happen. They are the ONLY source for large segments of information that people need and want. And those people are absolutely willing to pay for it.

The problem is large corporations have sucked all the local flavor from these publications and tried to make all papers abide by the same set of rules and guidelines. It doesn't work. That, along with the astounding lack of foresight when it comes to the Internet, is what's killing newspapers. It has nothing to do with supply and demand. It has everything to do with pathetic management and borderline corrupt business practices.

I would bet a lot of money that almost anyone with a sliver of common sense could take over one of these Gannett papers tomorrow and do quite well for decades to come.

I mostly agree with you, dog. But the other day I was thinking as I crossed over some rusty train tracks on an abandoned right-of-way ...

In the 1950s and 1960s, nearly every city that has currenly a daily newspaper had passenger railroad service. I'm guessing the notion that passenger railroad service would be wiped out, even in many large cities, was considered unthinkable back then.

Those of us in newspapers need to consider that when considering the future, if we have one.

You're probably more on the mark than you know. One of the other factors that contributed to railroads' demise (at least in the case of the Penn Central) was that they kept paying dividends to stockholders instead of reinvesting their profits in the product. As a result, railroad cars and tracks got older, and that lack of comfort turned off passengers.
Another problem was management's own lack of foresight. World War II was really the last gasp for railroads, when because of travel restrictions, they had more business than they could handle. They had the market to themselves, and didn't notice how many people were driving -- or how air travel would become easier and quicker with jet planes.
I recommend "The Wreck of the Penn Central," by a pair of writers from the late Philadelphia Evening Bulletin. It's downright scary.

[Frank_Ridgeway]

The average reader loves the simplicity that is USA Today. It's sad, but true...

They sell 2.2 million copies per day in a "circulation area" of 105 million households. I don't think we can draw any conclusions about "the average reader" from USA Today. I'm not making a judgment about what they do and how they do it. I'm saying the penetration in each market is relatively small and tells us nothing about what the average American reader loves.

[Kid Bro Sweets]

I work for Gannett. I work at a paper that made a lot of money last year. EBITDA of 20%+.

We're slashing left and right as if Judgment Day has arrived.

Where is all the money going?

[BTExpress]

Where is all the money going?

Debt. Debt. And more debt.

[WS]

Where is all the money going?

Corporates. Corporates. And more corporates who don't deserve it.

Fixed

[black dude with pompano]

I guess I'm going to be the only one to chime in that this is really a really ingenious idea (in an "evil genius" sort of way).

I live in a small city of about 50,000 (metro area of roughly 150,000 or so) with a really crappy daily newspaper (no offense to my friends who work there). I subscribed for a while but decided I couldn't justify the cost.

As a reader, I would actually love my local paper to be wrapped around USA Today (or the NYT or the Washington Post or even a regional paper). It would give me the minimum local content I need to be an informed citizen with a much more readable and well-presented national, international, business and national sports report.

From a publisher's standpoint, I could cut redundant desk editors who are no longer needed for the non-local pages and focus solely on reporters for print and online. I can cut any non-local ad reps, handling all national accounts through the home office. Keep a classifieds person, an obits person and a handful of local ad reps and -- boom -- you're done.

Not as simple as that, obviously, but I think it could work. ESPECIALLY at some of the smaller-sized Gannett properties that are already working with bare-bones staff and churning out a less-than-impressive product as it is.

Now if you tried to do this at a bigger paper that consistently offers readers a more comprehensive daily report, I think you'd run into major backlash.

[StaggerLee]

I work for Gannett. I work at a paper that made a lot of money last year. EBITDA of 20%+.

We're slashing left and right as if Judgment Day has arrived.

Where is all the money going?

Gannett CEO Gets $7.9 Million in 2007

   
By MATTHEW BARAKAT, AP

McLEAN, Va. - The head of the nation's largest newspaper chain received pay and compensation valued at $7.9 million in 2007, 36 percent higher than the previous year, according to an Associated Press analysis of corporate filings released Thursday.

Craig Dubow, chief executive, president and chairman of Gannett Co., which publishes USA Today and 84 other daily newspapers in the United States, received compensation including pay, bonus and stock options valued at $5.79 million in 2006.

[Drip]

I work for Gannett. I work at a paper that made a lot of money last year. EBITDA of 20%+.

We're slashing left and right as if Judgment Day has arrived.

Where is all the money going?

Gannett CEO Gets $7.9 Million in 2007

   
By MATTHEW BARAKAT, AP

McLEAN, Va. - The head of the nation's largest newspaper chain received pay and compensation valued at $7.9 million in 2007, 36 percent higher than the previous year, according to an Associated Press analysis of corporate filings released Thursday.

Craig Dubow, chief executive, president and chairman of Gannett Co., which publishes USA Today and 84 other daily newspapers in the United States, received compensation including pay, bonus and stock options valued at $5.79 million in 2006.

I shudder to think what 2008 will bring in.