1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

USA Today Sports Blasted by Layoffs

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Moderator1, Oct 6, 2010.

  1. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    One crusty old 27-year veteran's perspective:

    -- They say they'll work for less $, but they'll eventually get cranky about it.
    Of course I'll get cranky. But I'll still be there every day and not waste a minute of company time on personal crap. Fair enough?

    -- They'll leave as soon as they can find a job offering $1 more.
    Nah. Moving is a pain.
    -- To hell with veterans, they don't "get" social media, other digital thingamagigs.
    Ah, we get it. But it barely brings in pennies. What good is having 4 billion web hits that bring in $1.95 total while you are destroying your print product that pays 88% of the ad freight?
    -- Folks in middle age or older don't live/breathe/die for their jobs.
    Sure as hell worry about it more than I ever did before. But no, I will not live/breathe/die for an occupation that doesn't live/breathe/die for me.
    -- The old, sickly bastards skew the health insurance rates.
    Never been sick one day in 25 years with Tribune Company. I'm an insurance company's wet dream.
     
  2. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    The "old-timers" (anyone who has been in the industry for more than 10 years) have heard the "new plans" dozens of times before and are no longer buying the bullshit. They've seen what "bold, new initiatives" have done for companies in the past.
    "The calling" is no match for bullshit stacked exponentially higher and higher.

    The writing was on the wall as soon as newspapers were told "quality" doesn't influence people buying a paper or not.
     
  3. WriteThinking

    WriteThinking Well-Known Member

    This has always been, and still is, the, um, money graf, regarding the state of the industry and people's greatest frustration with it.

    It is the thing that must be resolved and reconciled if this industry is to survive well and thrive.
     
  4. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    Yes, but the future is delivering cotent in ways beyond newsprint. If we don't get in there and fight and figure out how to make money, we're dead.
     
  5. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    "Well, we're not going to pay for it, and we're not going to click on ads."

    [/everybody]

    Good luck.
     
  6. clutchcargo

    clutchcargo Active Member

    Man, BTE, do you have a blog somewhere? I enjoy how you write.
     
  7. Fran Curci

    Fran Curci Well-Known Member

    Back to main topic: It's true that no copy editors were laid off? That certainly goes against the trend.
     
  8. geddymurphy

    geddymurphy Member

    But surely you're aware that the print product isn't bringing in the money it once did, and there's absolutely no reason to think the decline will reverse.

    Craigslist ate the classifieds. The mobile Web ate USA TODAY's business travel demographic (in print, anyway -- they're doing well to keep reaching out to that demo online). We're in the midst of a "green" movement in which we're all encouraging people not to print e-mails, let alone read forest-devouring newspapers.

    Print won't die. But it's not going to be 88% of your revenue much longer -- in fact, if it's 88% today, your Web site needs some work.

    The online revenue needs to be bigger, yes. Newspaper ad/marketing departments haven't managed to make local papers' site the shopping hubs that the print papers were, and that's a failure that needs to be addressed. But we can't pretend the print revenue is coming back to where it was in 1995. If the online ideas are lame, you need to come up with better online ideas until something works. Or you're dead.

    Fran -- To my knowledge, no copy editors were laid off. But one person was laid off from the online desk, and the copy desk will likely be picking up more online duties. In Sports, they're actually much farther behind than other departments in that regard. The deadline structure certainly has something to do with that lagging -- it's a little easier for the Life department to post its own features than it is for Sports to post things being written at 10:30 p.m. -- but the Sports copy desk also had some institutional resistance, and they're very lucky it didn't come back to bite them. (Not saying at all that it's a bad thing they survived -- good people, good editors.)
     
  9. Fran Curci

    Fran Curci Well-Known Member

    Thanks, geddy. Surprising to hear about resistance in sports (seriously). I've seen and heard the opposite about most sports desks. Unless it's really painful to post a story. But at least USAT isn't taking the tack that copy editors are superfluous.
     
  10. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    I don't think it's the old-timers that are usually targeted. They're less likely to get let go because they're afraid to be sued.
     
  11. geddymurphy

    geddymurphy Member

    The last round of layoffs had a wide age range from youngest to oldest. With this one, the four reporters were mostly older.
     
  12. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    Well, there is one reason: The economy.

    We didn't lose $1 million in ad revenue from Circuit City because of the internet. We lost it because the company went kaput.

    We didn't lose millions in real estate advertising because of the internet. We lost it because the market went kaput.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page