Beware, Trentonian offering jobs that don't exist

fuck you and that stupid, gay-looking bird you call a mascot, bitch.

 

Now, that's comedy.

 

A stinging retort, indeed.

 

I thought this thread was to educate people about the employment pracitces/working conditions at the Trentonian and other JRC newspapers, not to insult eachother
(blue... the color of sarcasm)

 

and any advertising agency or advertiser with a little bit of sense will look at the ABC figures, if for no other reason than they aren't going to overpay.

 

Way to go — now you're thinking 1970s-style. ABC figures don't get everything. Advertising is all about how many people see your ad, not who buys the paper. If that sounds flimsy, think about this: ABC doesn't seem to have a good way to count Web page views. And it's Web traffic that drives our future, so that declining print circulation is only one piece of the puzzle. Too bad it's the only one many of us still seem to understand.

 

ABC's numbers do not match with the number of newspapers that actually leave The Trentonian building each night. The number of newspapers that leave the building each night minus the high number of unsold newspapers (from boxes, newsstands and contracted stores) that are returned to the building the following day equates to a daily circulation in the mid 30,000s.

Ghost makes a great point about website-skewed circulation. Most newspapers have a higher circulation/readership if website views are factored in.

The Trentonian's website specifically though does not get many daily hits and only a few advertisers' ads are on the website. Advertisers who purchase ads in the daily printed paper do not get their ads shown on the website so any hits to this website do not help those advertisers.

The sports portion of The Trentonian website today includes seven total current stories. There are four Associated Press articles (Allen Iverson, Wade Phillips, Floyd Landis, Pebble Beach Golf) and three JRC articles (Flyers and two 76ers); there are also five outdated stories (such as Barbaro's death).

Since starting this thread last month I have received many personal messages from JRC employees of the past and present. Based on those personal messages (only in cases when I have gotten permission from the messengers) and from other events I know to be fact, I am beginning an almost-daily reasons to not work for JRC list (in no particular order).

Reasons To Not Work For JRC​

Reason No. 1: Employees who utilize employer-to-bank direct deposit have actually had the amount of their weekly salary check deducted from their personal bank account instead of having that amount of money deposited into their account. Translation: Bob needed some quick spending dough to take Jean out for a fancy feast.

 

They also direct-deposit employee paychecks two or three days after the actual date of payday: payday is officially supposed to be Friday; direct-deposit is credited on Tuesday. So they get to keep your paycheck, drawing interest, for three extra days every week. Every week. Three times 52 over the course of a year -- effectively, they hold one of your paychecks back by five months. Multiply that by a few hundred employees, that's some nice change they're making on interest. A few more "fancy feasts."

 

It isn't really about how many people see the ad, it's about who those people are. Even when the paper briefly overtook the competition in daily (but not Sunday) circ, the readership was perceived as downscale with less disposable income than the competition's readers. So, really, no matter how many people The Trentonian reached, it was never the must-buy for the most coveted advertisers.

My dad was an ad man. One time when I was a kid, someone started a weekly and I was kidding my dad about how many ads the new paper had. He said, "Yes, they have all the stores that don't pay their bills on time that we had to cut off." The advertisers who pay their bills are very serious about having those ads work for them. They do not want to reach "a lot of eyes," they want to reach people they think can afford their product. The circulation battle in Trenton has in a sense been moot from the get-go, as the Times has dominated the advertising share even when it was briefly losing the circulation war.

 

This place sucks cow nut!!!

 

Sorry, I will believe the ABC figures over yours. ABC stands for Audit Bureau of Circulation. Publishers file a sworn statement, but then those figures are audited. In cases involving circulation fraud, it has never been in the manner you describe -- it would be too easy to be caught if you didn't print the right number of copies. Always it has involved printing lots of extra copies and dumping them in some way. Auditors are on site to observe printing, distribution and returns.

In the case of the Newsday circulation fraud, for instance, "They gave the auditors the actual street corners where the hawkers were selling the papers so they could see that the actual papers were being sold. But what the auditors didn't know was that the agents' own carriers were coming by and buying papers. They were buying five and six papers at a clip and then coming back later in a different car and buying five or six more."

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-bzcirc123964647sep12,0,1288951.story?coll=ny-topstories-headlines

As you can see in the Newsday report, attempts to fool auditors were far more sophisticated than what you suggest in Trenton. I do not find your version at all credible, because what you suggest would not fool auditors for a minute.

As I say, the truth about JRC is quite bad enough. It is overkill to take hearsay and pass it on here.

 

Cows don't have nuts, they have udders. Bulls have nuts.

And now, back to reaming JRC.