Brian Tierney blasts ad staff and Guild, says costs must be cut by 10 percent

The Guild release:

http://www.phillymag.com/blogs/philly/2008/01/23/tierney-to-unions-we-must-cut-costs-by-10-percent/

Tierney: We Face A Dire Situation

The company held a meeting this morning with representatives of all the unions at which publisher Brian Tierney described a grim financial picture for Philadelphia Newspapers. Citing the struggling economy and PN problems meeting debt requirements, Tierney predicted “a dire situation” by summer or fall if the company cannot find ways to cut costs by 10 percent.

Company executives intend to meet one-on-one with each union to discuss ways in which savings might be achieved.

They did not say what would happen if savings targets are not met, but made references to outsourcing jobs overseas. Tierney said he is determined to not lose investors’ money.

The Guild’s representatives at the one-hour session were PN Unit Chair Diane Mastrull and Local Representative Bill Ross.

Sadly, Tierney was especially harsh about our advertising sales staff, saying its union affiliation hampers him from getting the results the company needs. He threatened job cuts if the Guild prevails in arbitrations over what it contends were unjust firings of five advertising reps. In essence, the company is asking the Guild to violate the law by refusing to represent its members. Quite simply, the Guild will not oblige.

We will, however, as we have been doing, work with the company to attempt to find ways the Inquirer, Daily News and Philly.com can thrive and be a leader in an industry that needs creativity—not finger-pointing—to guide it through these difficult times.

We urge all members with any ideas for building revenue or cutting expenses to communicate them to Guild officers or to voices@local-10.com. We will then prepare a comprehensive response to the company’s request for help.

 

Another example of why private ownership is so much better than corp--- ... oh, wait a minute.

Blame the Guild. That's an easy strategy.

 

Tierney's been proven to be a fraud so far in this whole process.

The Philadelphia Magazine story from last year was telling.

 

He really means "I'm determined to increase our profit margin back to 25 percent," right?

 

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how a unionized sales force could possibly be a good idea.

 

Let's turn it around: How would a non-unionized sales force be more effective?

 

Understood . . . but if it serves as any measure of protection from douchebag industry suits, the idea becomes infinitely more appealing, instantaneously.

 

They would have less of their salary guaranteed and more based on commission -- although that is not the case on every non-union advertising staff.

 

Which would mean they'd have to get their asses out there and sell.

Look, I know times are tough in parts of the country (the downturn isn't hitting as hard in some areas), but some ad staffs just don't try. Maybe this would provide some incentive.

 

I'm sure the advertising department believes it could sell more ads if those morons in the newsroom produced a better product. And would they be wrong?

People on here always bitch that the advertising department doesn't sell their football tabs. Well, hell. They know which merchants are interested in newspaper advertising, they know the yearly ad budgets for those merchants, and they know which sporadic advertisers don't pay their bills. The goal isn't to sell a football tab so the sports department will be happy. The goal is to keep good advertisers in the paper consistently, and prove to them that regularly and predictably reaching this audience is better for their business than a scattershot approach either in the paper, or worse, spread among various other media. The other goal is to not give ad space to businesses that don't pay up. There is a finite amount of advertising dollars in any market. I don't blame them for not stressing one-shot deals.

Another thing is that newsroom people get pretty pissy if advertising people try to tell editors how to do their jobs. The reverse is also true.

 

Zell's pulling the same stunt with the Trib.

These guys must pass along internal memos regarding precisely how to turn up the heat on the frogs.

Changing the ad-sales deal is changing the rules in the middle of the game.
Hope those guys and gals have ironclad contracts and tell 'em where to shove it.

 

Who knows how their deal is written up. Maybe they get larger bonuses, not more guaranteed salary. I see the point, but in a major market, I'd rather be paying my ad reps more -- provided they bring home the bacon.