@#@#$'s about to go down at USAT

[mb]

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — USA Today, the nation’s second largest newspaper, is making the most dramatic overhaul of its newroom staff in its almost 30-year history in an effort deliver stories more quickly to mobile devices and produce more coverage likely to sell advertising.
The makeover outlined Thursday will result in about 130 layoffs this fall, USA Today Publisher Dave Hunke told The Associated Press. That translates into a 9 percent reduction in USA Today’s work force of 1,500 employees. He did not give a breakdown by departments for the layoffs.
Like most newspapers, Gannett Co.’s USA Today has been cutting back in recent years to offset a steep drop in advertising that is depleting its main source of income.

 

[Pete Incaviglia]

Huh?

in an effort deliver stories more quickly to mobile devices and produce more coverage USA Today will lay off more people?

Wha?

We're going to be faster and bigger and better — with nine percent less people.

 

[WBarnhouse]

We're going to be faster and bigger and better — with nine percent less people.

(Imagining voice of Sean Connery in The Untouchables): "That's ... the Gannett way."

 

[Joe Williams]

Talking with friends in the business 3-4 years ago, we concluded that the any future newsroom will need to have "half as many people making half as much money."

Maybe laying off and then building up (with kids and citizen-journos) is the quickest way to something like that. Let's face it, halving the salaries of longtimers wouldn't go down well. So you whack 100% of their paychecks, then hire cheap replacements.

Doesn't make up for what soon might happen, of course. Good luck to all.

 

[Armchair_QB]

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — USA Today, the nation’s second largest newspaper, is making the most dramatic overhaul of its newroom staff in its almost 30-year history in an effort deliver stories more quickly to mobile devices and produce more coverage likely to sell advertising.
The makeover outlined Thursday will result in about 130 layoffs this fall, USA Today Publisher Dave Hunke told The Associated Press. That translates into a 9 percent reduction in USA Today’s work force of 1,500 employees. He did not give a breakdown by departments for the layoffs.
Like most newspapers, Gannett Co.’s USA Today has been cutting back in recent years to offset a steep drop in advertising that is depleting its main source of income.

At least they're being up front about pimping out the newshole.

****ers.

 

[steveu]

I can't tell you how much this sucks, but the business model that USAT pursued isn't working. Their strategy was to blanket business travelers and hotels with copies of the paper. Well, business travel is down, and not every room in a hotel is filled...

I wonder how much longer the sister sports publication, Sports (the artist formerly known as Baseball) Weekly, will last.

 

[Smasher_Sloan]

I wonder how much longer the sister sports publication, Sports (the artist formerly known as Baseball) Weekly, will last.

I'm amazed that piece o' crap has lasted this long.

 

[BYH]

****ers.

I figure we're 10 years away from the day USAT is produced entirely by bloggers.

 

[DanOregon]

Good-bye McPaper - Hello McContent Rings!

I don't know how they expect to produce more content with fewer people. Their website is extremely weak considering the resources Gannett has.

 

[steveu]

I wonder how much longer the sister sports publication, Sports (the artist formerly known as Baseball) Weekly, will last.

I'm amazed that piece o' crap has lasted this long.

Hey Smash, I agree with ya on that one. Much better as BBW, not so much now that it can't decide what it wants to be.

 

[disgruntledgrunt]

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — USA Today, the nation’s second largest newspaper, is making the most dramatic overhaul of its newroom staff in its almost 30-year history in an effort deliver stories more quickly to mobile devices and produce more coverage likely to sell advertising.
The makeover outlined Thursday will result in about 130 layoffs this fall, USA Today Publisher Dave Hunke told The Associated Press. That translates into a 9 percent reduction in USA Today’s work force of 1,500 employees. He did not give a breakdown by departments for the layoffs.
Like most newspapers, Gannett Co.’s USA Today has been cutting back in recent years to offset a steep drop in advertising that is depleting its main source of income.

At least they're being up front about pimping out the newshole.

****ers.

My last stop would do that every once in a while. Beef up the business section to bend over for the moneyed communities. Then the ad reps, who though this was a great idea, couldn't fathom why the people who didn't pay for beefed up coverage about themselves weren't throwing money at the paper for beefed up coverage about themselves.

 

[Fredrick]

I think this answers our question if things have leveled off.

IMO, this USA Today announcement is the start of more layoffs and speeding the elimination of the print product. My question is ... how does USA Today think it is going to make money by providing electronic short news flashes to phones?

I mean somebody's got to get the meat to put on the phones. Kids making 10 bucks an hour are going to develop sources and generate sports news that advertisers will sponsor, that anybody will want to read on their I-phones?

Pro and college coaches will eat them alive. High school sports coverage? It will be completely gone in the new era of I-phone coverage.

There is no vision out there. It's Gannett continuing to make stupid moves and everybody copying them. Please explain to me what you think Gannett's vision is by slicing those reporters who actually have the ability to write something worth reading?

 

[Mark2010]

We've stopped concentrating on putting out newspapers and everyone is rushing head over heels for podcats, blogs, tweets, online verbage and so forth. Well, fine, have it your way.

If journalism is dead, maybe its time for me to find something else to do with my time.

 

[Fredrick]

I agree Mark. I'm at the point I really don't care when the hammer comes down on me.

But I just don't get how newspapers think they are going to make any money going to the quick blips on phones? Like I said, somebody has to write the content. And kids can't do it.

Do you agree college and pro websites need to steal all the remaining bits of businesses from newspapers now? They can put out little tweets and bits better than the punk, green kids who will be doing the writing for newspapers.

Everybody on our staff tweets with the best of 'em. There are no advertisers sponsoring our tweets or anything.

 

[Fredrick]

I wonder how much longer the sister sports publication, Sports (the artist formerly known as Baseball) Weekly, will last.

I'm amazed that piece o' crap has lasted this long.

I thought USA Today was the paper that stood a chance. Lots of short stories with one good long one per section.
Surprised they are giving up.
If people are unwilling to read ... why are books still selling?
I'll tell you one thing: Newspapers getting rid of good sports writers is not the way to save the business. What you are going to have once the veterans are all gone, is a bunch of kids putting out short stories and unreadable blogs that nobody is going to want to read or advertise for.
The people like yahoo and cbssportsline and fox etc., who have the good writers will be the only ones getting any advertising. Nobody's going to read that crap that the newspaper 10 dollar an hours are putting out. Cause they aren't going to get any breaking news. Coaches will just give it all to ESPN and its regional sites.

 

[playthrough]

Huh?

in an effort deliver stories more quickly to mobile devices and produce more coverage USA Today will lay off more people?

Wha?

We're going to be faster and bigger and better — with nine percent less people.

I read that to mean "no more of those pesky, diligent, careful copy editors," which of course will never come back to bite you in the @$$.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — USA Today, the nation’s second largest newspaper, is making the most dramatic overhaul of its newroom staff in its almost 30-year history in an effort deliver stories more quickly to mobile devices and produce more coverage likely to sell advertising.
The makeover outlined Thursday will result in about 130 layoffs this fall, USA Today Publisher Dave Hunke told The Associated Press. That translates into a 9 percent reduction in USA Today’s work force of 1,500 employees. He did not give a breakdown by departments for the layoffs.
Like most newspapers, Gannett Co.’s USA Today has been cutting back in recent years to offset a steep drop in advertising that is depleting its main source of income.

They've never been subtle about that.

But now they're shooting collagen and putting high-priced lipstick on the pig.

Running so many service-oriented articles to begin with, it's just a short
step to broad-scale whoring.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

I wonder how much longer the sister sports publication, Sports (the artist formerly known as Baseball) Weekly, will last.

I'm amazed that piece o' crap has lasted this long.

Find it borderline-useful for NFL. Wouldn't be caught near it, the remainder of the year.

 

[Fran Curci]

They do mention sports being viable as some kind of separate business. Maybe they'll invest MORE in sports. (Although from what I've heard, they have plenty of people, but not necessarily the right people and they aren't used well, either.)

 

[mustangj17]

I think this answers our question if things have leveled off.

IMO, this USA Today announcement is the start of more layoffs and speeding the elimination of the print product. My question is ... how does USA Today think it is going to make money by providing electronic short news flashes to phones?

I mean somebody's got to get the meat to put on the phones. Kids making 10 bucks an hour are going to develop sources and generate sports news that advertisers will sponsor, that anybody will want to read on their I-phones?

Pro and college coaches will eat them alive. High school sports coverage? It will be completely gone in the new era of I-phone coverage.

There is no vision out there. It's Gannett continuing to make stupid moves and everybody copying them. Please explain to me what you think Gannett's vision is by slicing those reporters who actually have the ability to write something worth reading?

Nobody wants short news flashes to their phones. That's what tweets are for.