Duh: Older workers important to companies

[SF_Express]

Despite initial appearances, this IS a journalism story: Bank of America did a study and found that companies are now doing what they can to keep OLDER workers (institutional knowledge and all that) so that younger workers aren't left without a clue and nobody to train them. I wonder if this message will dawn on newspapers, or whether it's mostly too late (it might be).

http://articles.boston.com/2011-06-18/business/29674652_1_older-workers-employers-health-care

 

[Cigar56]

There is no chance this will trickle down to newspapers -- unless older journalists want to return to newspapers making a third of their former salaries. The model in newspapers now is a thin layer of management at good salaries, with everybody else making peanuts.

The problem with this story is that banking and finance are still growth industries. There is no doubt they will bounce back after the recession. Newspapers are not coming back after the recession. Thus, there isn't opportunity for growth for newspapers. At this point, ex-journalists in their 50s are best looking for other places to work than papers.

 

[SF_Express]

There is no chance this will trickle down to newspapers -- unless older journalists want to return to newspapers making a third of their former salaries. The model in newspapers now is a thin layer of management at good salaries, with everybody else making peanuts.

The problem with this story is that banking and finance are still growth industries. There is no doubt they will bounce back after the recession. Newspapers are not coming back after the recession. Thus, there isn't opportunity for growth for newspapers. At this point, ex-journalists in their 50s are best looking for other places to work than papers.

All very good points. I wonder if at least some places, though, will see the value of that "institutional knowledge" for their readers. You're right -- probably not.

 

[sgreenwell]

I've actually found the opposite problem at the few shops (three) I've been involved with fulltime - There are entrenched layers of management and reporting that make moving up impossible. Rather than cutting any of these people, the normal decisions were to cut the lowest (and usually youngest) on the totem pole, or to withhold raises, or to have furloughs.

 

[WriteThinking]

If a job is not specifically for big, already-established names, I can hardly think of any newspaper or Web site that would hire anybody over the age of 35 if they have an opportunity to hire somebody under 35. Or, preferably, younger.

Things like institutional knowledge, experience, perspective, maturity, and the idea that one can be interested in or learn new things past a certain age, etc. do not matter at all in this business.

It's not that I think that's really true, but it is the perception, and it is the reality of recent trending. There's no denying it.

 

[SF_Express]

I've actually found the opposite problem at the few shops (three) I've been involved with fulltime - There are entrenched layers of management and reporting that make moving up impossible. Rather than cutting any of these people, the normal decisions were to cut the lowest (and usually youngest) on the totem pole, or to withhold raises, or to have furloughs.

Well, s, people complaining about dead wood not getting out of the way is a time-honored tradition, well before this economy.

 

[Versatile]

In my experience, the person who knows the most at a shop is the senior-most copy editor.

 

[I Should Coco]

I've actually found the opposite problem at the few shops (three) I've been involved with fulltime - There are entrenched layers of management and reporting that make moving up impossible. Rather than cutting any of these people, the normal decisions were to cut the lowest (and usually youngest) on the totem pole, or to withhold raises, or to have furloughs.

Well, s, people complaining about dead wood not getting out of the way is a time-honored tradition, well before this economy.

Yep. And what this economy/devolution of newspapers has done is kept some younger reporters "stuck" in jobs where, in other eras, they would have moved up.

We have a couple reporters like that at my shop, a 20K daily. Decent -- not great -- writers, but excellent reporters in their mid to late 20s who work hard for good stories. If there were any newspapers higher up the food chain which were hiring, they could do a great job. But those opportunities aren't there.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

Being almost 52, I would like to think that decades of experience are valuable, and I also think I can usually tell pretty quickly after picking up a paper which ones are put together by grown-ups. Unfortunately, from a business standpoint, it seems that all large papers are struggling pretty much equally regardless of whether they whacked by seniority or by inverse seniority. All that indicates to me is that newsrooms have less to do with readers' choices than we would like to admit.

Looking at it strictly from what a professional would notice in reading a newspaper, I think it's helpful to have a large number of people who grew up in the paper's home base, no matter their age. I've been the out-of-towner, and I don't discount the value of going out and grabbing the best talent you can get, and I even think a certain amount of turnover is healthy (Exhibit A: The Miami Herald in its prime). But if you don't have a large number of people who know a place in their gut -- and are in positions to make some decisions -- you are not only going to embarrass yourselves pretty often, you are going to put out a product whose general personality is generic. On the other hand, the worst top editor I've worked lived her entire life in that city, except for going to college two counties away, and the second-worst grew up close enough in the next state that he should know better.

 

[Joe Williams]

Used to be, the attitude toward newsroom workers was, they're all paid pretty lousy, so there was no need to shed the ones who'd been around long enough to amass a few more raises.

But things got so hairy that bosses began to sift and winnow based on the small differences in staffers' paychecks -- usually a pittance compared to what a big boss will take home in a bonus each year.

Now they'll whack the folks making $70K so they can staff with more making $45K (when they rehire at all). That's when you lose the long-term smarts and know-how.

This desire to pay only a young-folks' levels will catch up to newspapers big-time when those young folks ain't so young anymore. You can make it in your 20s and maybe 30s on tiny checks, but putting kids through college and saving for retirement requires grown-up pay.

Newspapers have screwed themselves up so completely that they cannot survive if they pay staffers grown-up pay.

But you will notice the big bosses scarfing at the public trough as aggressively as they can. While it lasts.

 

[sportsguydave]

There is no chance this will trickle down to newspapers -- unless older journalists want to return to newspapers making a third of their former salaries. The model in newspapers now is a thin layer of management at good salaries, with everybody else making peanuts.

The problem with this story is that banking and finance are still growth industries. There is no doubt they will bounce back after the recession. Newspapers are not coming back after the recession. Thus, there isn't opportunity for growth for newspapers. At this point, ex-journalists in their 50s are best looking for other places to work than papers.

All very good points. I wonder if at least some places, though, will see the value of that "institutional knowledge" for their readers. You're right -- probably not.

That would require wisdom and foresight ... something the suits in our business have consistently proven they don't have.

 

[sgreenwell]

I've actually found the opposite problem at the few shops (three) I've been involved with fulltime - There are entrenched layers of management and reporting that make moving up impossible. Rather than cutting any of these people, the normal decisions were to cut the lowest (and usually youngest) on the totem pole, or to withhold raises, or to have furloughs.

Well, s, people complaining about dead wood not getting out of the way is a time-honored tradition, well before this economy.

Yep. And what this economy/devolution of newspapers has done is kept some younger reporters "stuck" in jobs where, in other eras, they would have moved up.

We have a couple reporters like that at my shop, a 20K daily. Decent -- not great -- writers, but excellent reporters in their mid to late 20s who work hard for good stories. If there were any newspapers higher up the food chain which were hiring, they could do a great job. But those opportunities aren't there.

I agree. Let me clarify my earlier remarks a bit though - I definitely think there is value to having experienced hands at a shop. But like anything, it needs to be a balance. Then again, I realize that with the current state of the industry, the focus is more on right-now vs. any sort of long-term planning.

 

[SixToe]

I believe sgreenwell makes a good point.

Balance is necessary. Running off or losing almost all of your older, experienced staffers is not a good idea merely to save money in the short-term. Believing the young "mobile journalists" can step right in is just wishful thinking.

It would be like having a police department have all of its 25- or 30-year officers retire at one time because they could begin taking their pensions. They avoid problems by trying to stagger those retirements, planning ahead with hiring younger officers and putting older mentors with the young bucks to transfer the experience. They also might offer the older officers the chance to work part-time or have some role so their still visible in the department and community.

It may be, financially, the 'right' thing to do right now to cut, slash, buy out, fire or whatever to get costs down in newspapers. But losing the experienced journalists, and those who will stand up to newsroom management to voice an opinion, hurts very much in the long term.

Readers notice the losses, too. We all have known for years that younger readers aren't picking up newspapers. Even if they read online or get the tweet-feeds I don't believe they become as deeply engaged. It's just another 140-character snippet to them in the hundreds they may get during the day.

Readers of the physical paper learn to like, or dislike, specific writers, columnists and features or sections. When the beloved columnist in any section retires, dies or is replaced, we all hear the comments: "Hate to see him/her go" and "I don't enjoy it now like when he/she was there." Losing that community touchstone, not to mention the experience and possible leadership in the newsroom, really does hurt and a survey shouldn't have to be done to tell anyone in management.

 

[MileHigh]

Being almost 52, I would like to think that decades of experience are valuable, and I also think I can usually tell pretty quickly after picking up a paper which ones are put together by grown-ups. Unfortunately, from a business standpoint, it seems that all large papers are struggling pretty much equally regardless of whether they whacked by seniority or by inverse seniority. All that indicates to me is that newsrooms have less to do with readers' choices than we would like to admit.

Looking at it strictly from what a professional would notice in reading a newspaper, I think it's helpful to have a large number of people who grew up in the paper's home base, no matter their age. I've been the out-of-towner, and I don't discount the value of going out and grabbing the best talent you can get, and I even think a certain amount of turnover is healthy (Exhibit A: The Miami Herald in its prime). But if you don't have a large number of people who know a place in their gut -- and are in positions to make some decisions -- you are not only going to embarrass yourselves pretty often, you are going to put out a product whose general personality is generic. On the other hand, the worst top editor I've worked lived her entire life in that city, except for going to college two counties away, and the second-worst grew up close enough in the next state that he should know better.

Damn, I agree with you so much. Dead-on.

I picked up/went through three papers today while traveling. Two "metros," if you consider the last one a metro. The other a six-figure-circulation paper with a quasi-decent rep. The first one was, considering the times of print, still damn good. But maybe I'm biased because it's still one of my favorite papers. But it had smart, clean design, fantastic photography, stories I was drawn into in virtually every section. Took me a while to get through it. Clearly run by some adults in the room.

The second looked tired, a bit beat-down. Older fonts, same topics/approaches that I could have read five years ago. Last redesign was from about then. 25-30 minutes to get through. Run by an older crew fighting for the mid-1990s with a younger crew making their niche online, such as it is.

The last one took me 15-20 minutes to get through. The entire paper -- not just sports. Feels older, and skews that way. Enterprise? Nothing that drew me in. Same with dreadful headlines and pathetic, asleep at the switch design. Run by a crew set in its ways in the 1980s -- in print and online.

 

[schiezainc]

It's amazing how much experience can turn your product around.

My last couple of months in sports, Rhody & I were a two-man squad who'd been together on our own for about two years or so. We were in perfect rhythm and putting out great--and I mean great--sections. It was such a difference from when we started because we had to go through those experimental phases of layout and teach ourselves around our shortcomings but, man, when we were clicking there was nothing like it.

Of course, then I moved on for a higher paying position in the news side and, try as he may, my replacement is still learning the ropes and you can see the difference.

I think that's what the higher ups don't understand/care about. And we were only rocking three or four years of experience under our belts. It takes time to do this job the right way and losing that kind of experience is a brand-killer that takes a long time to recover from.

 

[Cigar56]

This desire to pay only a young-folks' levels will catch up to newspapers big-time when those young folks ain't so young anymore. You can make it in your 20s and maybe 30s on tiny checks, but putting kids through college and saving for retirement requires grown-up pay.

This won't be a problem going forward. Young reporters and editors growing up in the business will fill the few management opportunities that are available and the rest will move out of the business as their salaries are capped. Like it or not, that's the new model. Papers will back-fill with more young people as 30- and 40-somethings move on. I doubt we'll ever see an average newsroom again with dozens of mid- to late-career reporters and editors making $70K-plus. Shoot, I know a veteran copy editor who was making $50K working three days a week at the Los Angeles Times seven or eight years ago. Those days are long gone.

 

[SF_Express]

The idea that in the old days, there was usually a bigger and better paper for a talented young person to move on to can't be overstated. It's why I moved so many times (well, take the "talented" part for what it's worth) in my first 10 years in the business but have been at three places since 1987. The corollary is what I always told younger people in lower jobs at my biggest place -- you want to get somewhere, you might have to leave the comfort zone of this place and take take a flyer at a bigger beat but a smaller paper somewhere else.

 

[Magic In The Night]

One thing to remember is that older workers are often the ones with the most sources, who get the tips on news, even when it's not their beat. If newspapers want to stay on top of things, they'd be well-served to keep a few of them around. Same goes for the desk. The copy editors and designers who can do a lot of work fast and well are the ones who have done it for a long time. That would seem to be cost-effective, too. I think a lot of times when you get too many layers of management, it really slows down the process as you get too many cooks in the kitchen on stories.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

You understand newspapers don't really want any employees, young or old, producing content, right? There's a reason Arianna Huffington is rich and famous, and it ain't her political views. It's the envy of the industry for her business model.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

The two copy editors from my first stop who were head, shoulders, knees and toes better than any of the other copy editors there and always took the time to give feedback and were just unbelievable in every sense of the word. As someone else mentioned, they knew more about how to put out the section than anyone else there.

Both were forced out a couple years back. Both were in their 50s and neither has found work since.