Oregonian newsroom set to cut 70

Just over 30 have volunteered for a buyout. It would be the first layoff for full-timers in that newsroom in, like, forever.

http://blogs.wweek.com/news/2009/11/04/oregonian-editor-tells-staff-it-appears-layoffs-are-inevitable/

 

Won't happen until February until the Newhouse pledge ends....

 

I think that's why Sandy is warning them now.

 

I thought they just went through a bunch of buyouts about a year ago...I remember hearing some now-freelance photographers talking about it on the football sidelines.

 

I've also heard 30 from people who work there. Last week of this month is when they are supposed to happen.

ETA: 30 translates to about 15% of the newsroom staff, I think.

 

Wow, they just posted an opening for a sports job recently.

 

This was probably just discovered after being announced in January. Those damn trees just block all messages from getting out of there.

 

Not to be my usual negative self, but does anybody else feel we are getting closer to going all online?
I'm sensing the think tankers really have convinced most publishers that the end is here for the print edition.
Truthfully I think it will be great for some of us who have covered sports a long time. We can break away and compete with our former employers when we are all online together.
Without the power of the printing press, the newspaper is nothing.
I can't wait for the end of the print edition. Bring it on.

 

15+ years into the Internet age . . . and 11 percent of our ad revenue is online.

So no, I don't think our we're just going to piss away 89 percent of our revenue.

Just the other day I cut out three ads of upcoming festivals (Armenian, Greek, Renaissance) in our newspaper that I thought my wife would like to see.

How would I know about those festivals if not for the print edition? Where would I look?

 

That information is assuredly available on the Internet somewhere. The advantage of the newspaper is that it aggregates that information for you and puts it all in one place.

Five, 10 years ago, that was a valuable service. Now, though? There's plenty of Internet applications that will do exactly that for you. It's a bit more work on the front end -- setting up your iGoogle or whatever -- but once you do it, you don't have to flip through the damn paper every day. Whenever there's a festival, you get a notification.

So I see your point, but I question the length of time it's actually going to be valid.

 

I see Fredrick's, BTExpress's and deskslave's points.

But, here is another one: Newspapers know where most of their ad revenue comes from, and yet, they still seem determined to all but do away with their core product, and put their emphasis and energy on things that don't bring in money and that distract from newspapers: i.e. their Web sites, Twitter, video, and all the other current techno/social fads, etc., anyway.

My thought is that, because today's readers don't seem to care about newspapers, the people who run them are deciding that they don't, either, even if only in an effort to remain relevant, and because, well, because everybody's doing it. It's almost like another example of pack journalism.

So, yes, newspapers actually do seem to be trying to piss away 89 percent of their ad revenue. And eventually, they will, if they don't figure out how to monetize the other avenues of distribution.

The battle is between relevance, and solvency. And the fact that only one of those -- not both -- seems possible at any one time is the main problem for newspapers right now.