More furloughs from Gannett

I have a few friends who work for a Gannett paper (DM Register). Some of them have taken furloughs already and it's being reported that they have to take another one. A few of them have been poking fun about being furloughed on Twitter. One Twittered "it'll be so great to go on vacay...if I had gas money. Thxs Furloughs!".

They don't like it, but they sure as hell are going to make fun out of it at every chance they get.

 

Copycats all over the industry. Furloughs, paycuts, more furloughs. Some folks going to 32 hours. Stupid industry.

 

Same boat here, clutch. Hearing about this just now.

 

Not sure what the situation is with the Rochester D&C, but apparently something is going right:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003955157

There's some good choices in the market between the D&C, City (weekly indy) and the GateHouse weeklies that cover the suburbs/county.

I assume that having so many colleges in the area helps.

 

"This data begs the question: is the constant negative news feed on the industry warranted when newspapers are actually being read by three-fourths of the adult population?" Gary Meo, senior vice president, print and digital media at Scarborough, asked in a statement. "When you look at audience data, it seems irrational that advertisers are leaving newspapers because the numbers speak for themselves."

I'm becoming more and more convinced that there's an active effort among companies like Gannett to kill their newspaper products so they can shift their business interests into sectors with less overhead (printing, sizeable newsroom staffs, delivery, etc., has to make them choke when they look at their bottom line). That, combined with what essentially seems like a PR campaign by BLOGS!, seems to be doing more damage to newspapers than the reality of the market.

But perhaps I'm getting paranoid. Time to line my walls with my daily newspaper and invest in a tinfoil hat.

 

Advertisers aren't leaving because there are fewer readers.