Gannett joins the club?

Here's what I saw when I looked at the list Mizzou was handed: a bunch of Gannett papers that either don't cover major pro teams on a day-to-day basis (the NFL only plays once a week, unlike MLB, NBA and NHL) or that have said, "Fuck it. We can't cover those teams with our available resources so we're not even going to bother."

 

Scripps did a "write down" this week, too. And they already divided the papers out from the other media holdings. Can't think any of that bodes well.

 

Scripps decided years ago to ditch their newspapers. Only problem is, instead of selling them or trying to pump circulation, they're willing to watch them wither and die -- at least with the properties that have competition like Cinci, Albuquerque and Birmingham.

 

Gotta believe they'll sell them for real in the near future. I mean, the way newspaper companies are copying one another that just seems inevitable. And something has to give in Denver.

 

Newspaper? No one reads them.

 

That's one more reason I'm calling semi-BS on this whole "wrap" concept.

A few things:

(1) If you haven't acquired the urge to subscribe to USA Today in that last 25 years, you're not going to want any iteration of that paper showing up on your doorstep now.

(2) Even if you don't have pro/D-I beats to write about in Saturday and Sunday editions, you do have preps -- a key component of the hyper-local mantra -- to report on, especially during football and basketball season. Sending readers to your web site -- or, gasp, MaxPreps, etc. -- is another death knell.

(3) A Gannett mid-metro near me publishes a 36-page daily section on average. In it:

8 pages of display advertising
6 pages of classifieds
1 page of paid (and very profitable at $8.50 or so a line) death notices

Even dialing all of that down to what the equivs would be in a community-paper market, that's a minimum of 10-11 pages a day of advertising when you consider that weekend staples such as employment and real estate classifieds will have to be absorbed Mon-Fri. It would take a minimum of 8-9 pages of editorial to support it, so you're still looking at 30-40 local bylined pieces a day now that you're not running any AP world/national stuff.

I'm not even sure USA Today press configurations can accommodate an additional 18- or 20-page section on days when they're printing their own special products.

And I can't see the net result -- nuking some layout, reporting, photo and editor positions (while more or less needing to retain current ad staffs) but also losing a bunch of paid circulation from disgusted readers -- as being anything better than a wash with the current position. Even some of the advantages of shuttering your presses are negated by having to outsource printing of the myriad of non-daily pubs most Gannett shops are saddled with these days.

 

We're having only minor layoffs coming up at my shop. Though when I saw an e-mail sent to every employee from the publisher, I knew it couldn't be good. My girlfriend told me I need to find a job in an industry that's not dying. That might be really good advice.

 

From what I've read, it looks like those in the newsroom making the most (ie old-timers) are the most likely to leave given that publishers are being told to hit a dollar amount instead of a body count.

 

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/wall-street-cheers-gannett-cuts/story.aspx?guid=%7BEEC525DD%2D2C80%2D4F83%2DAD5A%2DCA015ED349B4%7D&siteid=yhoof
After hearing this news, I wouldn't be surprised if others followed suit as early as today. This is such a cookie cutter business.
Had a college freshman ask me two days ago about becoming a journalist. I didn't dissuade him because everyone has dreams, but I just told him what's going on in the business. He asked would I recommend the business to him and I looked him in the eye and told him, "No."
That hurt me more than it hurt him.

 

Agreed Drip. I don't know how I would answer a job interview question "where do you see yourself in 5 years." In reality, the job candidate should be asking that question of the company.
Cutting news staffers right now would be like the airlines cutting mechanics. Sure the stock might go up initially, but you know how the story is going to end. And knowing the way Gannett works, the "innovations" will be spared while nuts and bolts local coverage will be hacked.

 

Five years? Hell, I can't say where I'll be in five seconds. And I'm very serious about that.
I was also very serious when I told the young man the pros and cons about this business. What is he going to do? He said he's gong to reevaluate everything. He's going to Syracuse so it's not like he won't get a quality education.
The fact is, like it or not, that the life span of journalism - and I'm talking about newspapers specifically - is reaching its end. I had given it 20 years but if papers follow Gannett's suit, and they will, it will be sooner.
It also doesn't help when Unions sell out, like in Philadelphia where an anticipated raise was given back with the hopes of jobs being spared. In the case of Philly, I'm looking for the axe to fall on more jobs after the Christmas holiday season if not sooner.
I truly believe that within the next five years a major newspaper will close its doors forever. I hope that doesn't happen but I believe its inevitable.

 

I read above where someone said cutting news staffers is suicide. I respectfully disagree. Newspapers, at least the ones I know, have wayyyyyy too many managers.

I counted this last night: My paper has 13 reporters and 10 managers. Does that sound sane? A friend who works at a much larger paper counted his staff, just in sports, and discovered 10 reporters along five "editors". That's out of hand. That's newspapers right now.

If you're an assistant _______ editor for _______, I'd seriously update that resume. That job, whatever it is, won't be around much longer.

I have Sirius. I listen to Radio Disney a lot. That's "music" and there are tons of ads.