Even USA Today is not immune

At least it's being done in the form of buyouts and not layoffs.

 

That stinks.

The parameters are interesting. Let's say you have 15 years of experience and 8 years of online experience. Does that mean you don't qualify? What's the message here?

 

"Get lost," I think. :

 

Once the names start to emerge, some of us may have thoughts on whether this could represent a bit of addition-by-subtraction. Or, as I fear, they'll cut meat and bone and leave the fat intact.

 

I guess I meant is Gannett saying, "If you've been around awhile and didn't take steps to board the online bus until 5 years ago.... see ya."

 

This is pretty damn troubling, given that paper's circulation figures and its relatively successful Web site. Either journalists again are paying a stiff price for some bad business decisions that go well beyond staffing, or (I suspect) this whole buyout/layoff craze is just too enticing for even the financially sound papers to pass up.

So much of what gets done in this business is copycat stuff. Lately, it's "hyperlocal" and "buyouts/layoffs". The money boys decide they want a second helping of dessert, so they whack a few dozen jobs.

 

It doesn't matter how high the circulation of your newspaper is or how neat your web site looks if nobody wants to buy advertising in either one.

We're constantly talking about creative ways to improve the product, when what we need is creative ways to improve the advertising.

 

Either that or convince the suits that maybe making only 20 percent profit is still better than losing 39 billion at General Motors.

 

Only makes sense with some Gannett papers shrinking the paper even further.

Coming soon: USA Today...the postage stamp-sized edition.

 

They won't have any shortage of eligible buyout candidates. A friend said there are 43 in the sports department alone.