Digital First pursuing Gannett

Also agree with this, SoloFlyer.

The only thing I'd say is, the Facebook reply/excuse shouldn't be, "The stark reality is, we need subscribers to help us cover breaking news."

It is 1,000 percent bullshit that a spike in subscribers - especially at that might-as-well-give-it-away digital special of 3 months for $1 that Gannett is trotting out everywhere - is going to do anything to spur hiring and bulking up newsroom staffing.

It is an insult to the intelligence of your customers to claim that.

 

I remember the “Mojo” thing too. At the big meeting to announce it, the editors were joking that a couple of 30- and 40-year veterans were going to leave the desk and become mojos. They left the desk, alright. They retired.

And it was somewhat amusing to point out how were we supposed to be a 24/7 news operation when nobody was going to want to work at 3 a.m. Sure enough, the first few 5 a.m.-1 p.m. people kept quitting left and right.

 

It's just such bull. Like I said earlier, even if the whole community signs up they aren't going to change their business practices. They'll still have another round of layoffs in a few months. They'll still skim as much as they can. It's false advertising in a way because the posters know it won't change anything and Gannett knows it won't change anything but they're still directed to keep feeding that to the public to try and make a few bucks.

It also strikes me as a negative because in some way it blames the public when they respond to criticism of why they weren't at something or when they dropped the ball on something else. Like, hey, if you had a subscription we'd be there! Sure the public's news consumption ways are part of this problem, but newspapers set it up that way by giving it up for free for eons and overall not overall adapting to the changing times. But yeah, get that subscription and it will fix all!

 

If the attitude at my former Gannett shop is any indicator, here's what would happen if there was a rash of new subscribers: the "suits" there and at corporate would make the leap that cutting staff leads to increased subscribers and revenue, so there would be more cuts.

I wish I was kidding.

 

I think that if a paper is going to compete in the on-line world then it needs to be operating 24/7. Subscribers are not going to want to wait until the shop opens to check the headlines on their cell phones. So I think that the paper will have to cover a large enough market area to be able to sustain a 24 hour newsroom. Which means one hell of a lot less papers.

And if a paper is not going to compete in the electronic world it is going to fade away.

 

Gannett is in real trouble - earnings down, stock price down, pressure from DFM up. Gannett Shares Fall on Earnings Miss as MNG Proxy Fight Heats Up

 

Gannett actually lost money in the fourth quarter. OUCH. Explains the January layoffs - but damn - if they can't even cut expenses ahead of revenues to ensure a five percent profit - DURING THE HOLIDAY SEASON, they are done.

 

Oops!

USA Today reporters scoured hundreds of yearbooks for racist photos. They found one published by their own editor.

 

That’s not an Onion headline?

 

It's disingenuous. None of them are going to sink one more penny into another reporter, photographer or editor.

It's like spinning tax cuts ... when people are fed the BS line of "they'll reinvest in people, provide raises, increase the number of jobs and upgrade equipment."

No, they won't. And neither will Gannett. The extra money goes right in the executives' pockets ... soon, a proxy vote to figure out six- and seven-figure bonuses for executives while the next wave of rank-and-file are laid off.

 

There isn't anyone at my Gannett site looking at pages before they are sent. Used to be collaboration with design studio and staff but not anymore. Basically when pages are ready ship 'em out.