Digital First pursuing Gannett

[BurnsWhenIPee]

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 bullshirt 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.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Agree with every word, Roscalbo.

You want to attract readers/subscribers? Don't make excuses for what you can't do, and promise things will get better if everyone subscribes, which is utter horseshirt.

I remember the days of the "mojos" - mobile journalists, with the promises of staffing capabilities 24/7. Now, I'm told our local Gannett shop has literally no one working at all on Sundays, and usually just a producer for a day shift on Saturdays.

Also, apparently all the social media work has been farmed out to the Design Studio, so they are sharing/posting stories. Which, inevitably leads to social media posts linking stories about news that happens 4 states away, with no local connection or explanation why.

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.

 

[playthrough]

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 bullshirt 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.

That's my complaint, living in a town with a Gannett paper and the remaining staff at the paper asking the area journalist/writer/PR community to "support local journalism" and that the $3 or $5 per month is no big deal. I know that's no big deal, that my wife's daily Starbucks tab. But it's the principle of it, especially since now I know about three times as many people that used to work at the paper than currently do.

 

[Roscablo]

That's my complaint, living in a town with a Gannett paper and the remaining staff at the paper asking the area journalist/writer/PR community to "support local journalism" and that the $3 or $5 per month is no big deal. I know that's no big deal, that my wife's daily Starbucks tab. But it's the principle of it, especially since now I know about three times as many people that used to work at the paper than currently do.

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!

 

[BurnsWhenIPee]

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.

 

[LanceyHoward]

Here's a staffing thing that caught my eye while going back to more Coloradoan observations. There was a big wreck on I-25 in northern Colorado on Saturday night just as you get to Fort Collins. It closed the interstate for miles and for hours. The Coloradoan eventually posted several updates on it but a Facebook comment called them out for a TV station in Denver tweeting out info about it an hour before the Coloradoan said a peep. The paper responded to that comment and said they don't really have anyone on the clock on weekend nights any more and that the only way they noticed it is because one of their editors happened to drive by and see it.

A few thoughts, the first being what a sad state it is that the only way you get news is if one of your not on the clock workers happens to stumble by it. It wasn't even late. Is there no system in place to make sure if at least something breaking happens you are on it? I may show my age, but when I was at a decent-sized metro daily our editors had police scanners at home. And we still had a full desk and a couple reporters in the newsroom until at least 1 a.m. every day. Do these papers with no staffs left have no tools at all? Even with limitations you still are about the only local new source and still exist to be such. (And to sort of piggy tail on the hed above it's amazing they have anyone doing anything any more let a lone someone local looking at a hed.)

Two, the Coloradoan often responds to criticism to their coverage and their limitations. They usually conclude it, like they did with this one, saying that's why they need people to buy subscriptions. I sort of hate it. But again I come from a different time, I guess, and wish they'd just take responsibility and stop making excuses. I also hate the sales pitch, which I have a hard time believing changes anything anyway even if the whole area all of a sudden signed up. But then, at this point, I don't even see how they are doing what they are doing with what they have. So I suppose I don't blame them.

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 heck of a lot less papers.

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

 

[Readallover]

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

 

[DanOregon]

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.

 

[DanOregon]

Oops!

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

 

[Sports Barf]

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?

 

[Sam Mills 51]

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!

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.

 

[studthug12]

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.