Layoffs coming at the OCR...

[Mizzougrad96]

This is always tough to see...

http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2014/06/oc_register_announces_layoffs_mandatory_furloughs_and_severance_packages.php


Thoughts and prayers for anyone impacted by this...

 

[SnarkShark]

Not clear if layoffs are coming to the newsroom, but they are offering buyouts. Also making all employees (at the OCR, LAR and P-E) take 10 furlough days in June-July.

 

[da man]

This is the paper that had that big hiring binge not too long ago and said it was investing in the product, right? I was really hoping that would be a success.

Sigh.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

This is the paper that had that big hiring binge not too long ago and said it was investing in the product, right? I was really hoping that would be a success.

Sigh.

Yeah, the only paper I can think of that has invested significantly in new people and done well is USA Today, and that was more a case of getting rid of those who had become complacent, if nothing else and replacing them with good talent.

 

[steveu]

Aw ****. I was hoping, one level, that this would work. If he would have just kept the OCR and not tried expanding with LBR, LA Register and P-E I wonder if he would have succeeded.

Not ready to say the experiment is a failure, but the patient needs a lot of care.

 

[SnarkShark]

It's worse than originally thought.

This is what I've heard. They've offered 75 percent of the newsroom staff buyouts. If they don't get enough takers, they will lay off (with buyouts included) around 1/3 of the newsroom staff. Cuts have been called "severe."

 

[Fran Curci]

That "new talent" at USA Today ..? I'm sure there were some people who weren't needed, but a lot of the new writers are simply younger versions of the previous writers. George Schroeder was a good hire.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

That "new talent" at USA Today ..? I'm sure there were some people who weren't needed, but a lot of the new writers are simply younger versions of the previous writers. George Schroeder was a good hire.

I have a former co-worker who was in the previous regime at USA Today and they would complain all the time about how poorly it was run and how much dead weight there was. They were there for well over a decade and every time I saw them would say, "At some point they're going to realize how much money they're wasting."

Apparently, it took 14-15 years for significant changes to happen.

Maybe I'm biased because I have several friends who were hired there, but I think the product is night and day better than it used to be.

 

[Songbird]

I'm almost wondering if Kushner gave a rat's ass and really just wanted to be stroked as "THE SAVIOR!"

One year? He gave his big ambitious idea one year?

Same thing with Paton and his big ambition. He gave Thunderdome one year then scrapped it all. Makes zero sense.

 

[LongTimeListener]

I'm almost wondering if Kushner gave a rat's ass and really just wanted to be stroked as "THE SAVIOR!"

One year? He gave his big ambitious idea one year?

Same thing with Paton and his big ambition. He gave Thunderdome one year then scrapped it all. Makes zero sense.

No, it makes sense.

If you've given it a year and gotten everything up and running and you simply cannot generate revenue, it would be apparent by then. He probably had a fixed number that he was willing to spend before he saw a sign of progress, and he hit that number and there was no sign of progress.

 

[BB Bobcat]

Reminds me of FanHouse

"Hey, we're going to hire a bunch of people and really create a lot of great content and people are just going to flock to us!"

Two years later....

"Oh, that didn't work. Never mind."

 

[Screwball]

I'm almost wondering if Kushner gave a rat's ass and really just wanted to be stroked as "THE SAVIOR!"

One year? He gave his big ambitious idea one year?

Same thing with Paton and his big ambition. He gave Thunderdome one year then scrapped it all. Makes zero sense.

No, it makes sense.

If you've given it a year and gotten everything up and running and you simply cannot generate revenue, it would be apparent by then. He probably had a fixed number that he was willing to spend before he saw a sign of progress, and he hit that number and there was no sign of progress.

I'm not sure he had a fixed number. The immediate furloughs suggest he couldn't find any more lenders, or at least couldn't get any more financing until he cut costs.

 

[Alma]

Reminds me of FanHouse

"Hey, we're going to hire a bunch of people and really create a lot of great content and people are just going to flock to us!"

Two years later....

"Oh, that didn't work. Never mind."

Yeah, well, that's the business mindset today. Make a mistake, acknowledge it quickly, move on, even if humans are in your wake. The idea is that once you hit on a great revenue stream, you'll hire many more people back on, albeit not the same people.

There is no time to lose money or tread water when you're dealing with investors. They care not about the product.

I believe Kushner does care. I do. But I think you have to find that package of stuff readers really want. And you have to learn to protect the **** out of the content. News gathering organizations really struggle with this, and little one-off Web sites -- where one person makes the money and more or less repackages paid content for free -- benefit.

 

[Alma]

That "new talent" at USA Today ..? I'm sure there were some people who weren't needed, but a lot of the new writers are simply younger versions of the previous writers. George Schroeder was a good hire.

I have a former co-worker who was in the previous regime at USA Today and they would complain all the time about how poorly it was run and how much dead weight there was. They were there for well over a decade and every time I saw them would say, "At some point they're going to realize how much money they're wasting."

Apparently, it took 14-15 years for significant changes to happen.

Maybe I'm biased because I have several friends who were hired there, but I think the product is night and day better than it used to be.

It's much better because of Wolken and Schroeder.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

That "new talent" at USA Today ..? I'm sure there were some people who weren't needed, but a lot of the new writers are simply younger versions of the previous writers. George Schroeder was a good hire.

I have a former co-worker who was in the previous regime at USA Today and they would complain all the time about how poorly it was run and how much dead weight there was. They were there for well over a decade and every time I saw them would say, "At some point they're going to realize how much money they're wasting."

Apparently, it took 14-15 years for significant changes to happen.

Maybe I'm biased because I have several friends who were hired there, but I think the product is night and day better than it used to be.

It's much better because of Wolken and Schroeder.

I'd add about four names to that list, but agreed...

 

[Alma]

That "new talent" at USA Today ..? I'm sure there were some people who weren't needed, but a lot of the new writers are simply younger versions of the previous writers. George Schroeder was a good hire.

I have a former co-worker who was in the previous regime at USA Today and they would complain all the time about how poorly it was run and how much dead weight there was. They were there for well over a decade and every time I saw them would say, "At some point they're going to realize how much money they're wasting."

Apparently, it took 14-15 years for significant changes to happen.

Maybe I'm biased because I have several friends who were hired there, but I think the product is night and day better than it used to be.

It's much better because of Wolken and Schroeder.

I'd add about four names to that list, but agreed...

I can imagine who some of them are. They're fine.

 

[Mr. Editor]

That "new talent" at USA Today ..? I'm sure there were some people who weren't needed, but a lot of the new writers are simply younger versions of the previous writers. George Schroeder was a good hire.

I have a former co-worker who was in the previous regime at USA Today and they would complain all the time about how poorly it was run and how much dead weight there was. They were there for well over a decade and every time I saw them would say, "At some point they're going to realize how much money they're wasting."

Apparently, it took 14-15 years for significant changes to happen.

Maybe I'm biased because I have several friends who were hired there, but I think the product is night and day better than it used to be.

It's much better because of Wolken and Schroeder.

I'd add about four names to that list, but agreed...

I can imagine who some of them are. They're fine.

An old colleague of mine has worked there and told me during APSEs that they won their most ever APSE writing awards this year with five. I went back and looked and I believe most are fairly new hires.
http://apsportseditors.org/newsletter/2013-apse-contest-all-results/
They do have good writers who have been there a while too.

 

[SnarkShark]

T.J. Simers took the buyout...

http://www.losangelesregister.com/articles/know-600649-one-never.html

 

[steveu]

Great column. I didn't know Ashton Kutcher owned the Register, though.

On a more serious note: LA Times is trying an introductory rate for digital subscribers, $3.96 for the first month. Other papers are trying this as well. I wonder if it's time for the OCR to tweak its paywall a bit and try extra things to bring in subscribers.

 

[gravehunter]

Here is the way it was explained to me through someone still at the paper. Everyone must take a two-week furlough before the end of July. The buyouts have been offered and "associates" had until Monday (June 9) to decide on whether or not they would take the buyout. Those who requested buyouts will be notified by Friday (June 13) if they can take their buyouts or stay with the paper. Those who have their buyouts approved will be out by the following Friday (June 20). I was also told that rather than looking at a specific number of bodies to cut loose, they are looking to get their salary payouts below a certain level.