This is a long and interesting read from the CEO of the Journal Register Co. on a company that has taken a ruthless approach to journalism. It has turned a lot of its coverage over to upaid, or lightly paid, freelancers and sent production, editing and pre-press functions to gosh-knows-where, but by golly they are making money again.
If the folks being beaten in the galley to row the boat, go with the program they are in line this year to receive an extra week's pay. Wanna bet the officers on deck are getting a lot more?
The one thing I agree with him on is that the industry was slow to see the impact of online. Unfortunately in the company I am most familiar with the people responsible for that lack of vision remain high on the payroll while those under their command are largely on the beach through no fault of their own.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Jim,
A very eye-opening article or post whatever you want to call it. Mr Paton hits it on the nose. We need to change and change fast. Unfortunately a lot of good people got tossed off the boat without a lifejacket so the company can change and get to that point as stated in the article.
My point is that many of the wrong people got tossed off the boat. And many of the people who should have been tossed overboard are still there.
And so the previous doesn't sound too self-serving, I count myself as one of those ready to be knocked off the boat. I was not a new technology guy so I was probably a good one to jettison.
If I had known the journalism industry was going to turn into this pathetic caricature, I would've stayed in the service.
1) This farce of a company is profitable because it filed bankruptcy and got out from under an amount of debt you would never believe; it got rid of dozens of properties, including several non-dailies here in Michigan; and its payroll at remaining properties is a small fraction of what it was five years ago -- and we're talking about a notoriously-cheap company pre-bankruptcy.
2) If anyone here thinks "'Twitizens' covering ALL high school sports in town" is the holy grail to making money, I've got a bridge to sell you. Apparently the East Cost is far different from my neck of the woods, where every other person at every high school sports event is texting their friends/parents/grandparents with constant updates.
Mr. Paton makes some solid points, and I certainly give him credit for trying something -- anything -- at J-R. And every parent spending tens of thousands of dollars for their child's J-school degree should read this presentation. But, given this company's history, the self-back patting is a bit excessive. JMHO.
Jim,
What in your opinion went into management/ownership decisions as to whom to keep and whom to force out at the FJ? There may be no blanket rule or guide, but I bet you have some opinion about how these staffing decisions were made. Not sure I've seen you state that particular opinion here. My guess is, generally speaking, the more years of service you had and the more you were paid, the more likely you were to get the boot, regardless of your techie knowledge or journalistic talents and skills. That said, it seems at least a couple of longtime editorial staff avoided the chopping block. How did they stay on? Politics? Did they cut deals? Or were they considered inexpendable or just management favorites?
I'll need to think on my answer. I'll get back here in a day or two with something that is not off the top of my head.
http://www.journalregister.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=352&Itemid=5
Wow, that was interesting. So am I to understand that this company has stopped chasing the print dollars to chase the digital dimes and reduced expenses so it can still make a handsome profit on the dimes? I assume that it is now a much smaller company.
Because that's the problem we're facing at my paper. We're pouring all these resources into our website, but almost all our revenue comes from print. So the pressure to wring more dollars out of print is enormous -- we produce lots of weird special sections to do this -- so we have extra money to do cool stuff online.
He's right -- there's no use grousing about how terrible it is that the traditional newspaper business model is dying (or dead). It is what it is.
But why can't I muster much enthusiasm about an "exciting" new journalism model that works low-wage people to death, works others for free and relies heavily on free software ... while management reaps most of the fruits of the labor?
Wow, Inky nailed that 1,000 % in the last paragraph.
Jim,
Just a reminder ... You were going give some thought to and then comment about this question, posted above:
What in your opinion went into management/ownership decisions as to whom to keep and whom to force out at the FJ?
Yes, I've been a little distracted lately. I'll get to it this weekend. Thanks for the prompt.
Anonymous 9:12
I'm sure Jim is taking his time considering carefully his answer because there are some people still at The FJ that he has great respect for. There were a series of "buy outs" offered, the very first was offered to specific employees with X number of years and the necessary combination to retire. One of the next buyouts (encouragers to eliminate personnel without having to fire anyone) was made available if you were age 55 and had a certain number of years, but not necessarily 25 (I don't remember exactly). I'm not 100% (because I left) but I think there were three buyout offers, all aimed at personnel with longtime years. The final boot came at the end of May 2009. The decision had been made by that time to drop the paper to three days a week which nullified a corporate promise to not layoff personnel due to technological advancements. The advertising/business side was less affected because they needed those folks to keep selling ads to make money. Editorial personnel were a drain on the bottom line because news people don't "make" money. Circulation was slowly eliminated because those services could be coordinated among other papers. It came straight down to the newsroom. Cut heavy, cut deep. At the end of May 2009 there were no employees in the newsroom with 20 years seniority, a couple had more than 10 years and many since have left. Some of the higher seniority who are still there have good reasons to be there, they took huge paycuts in May 2009. They have families and knew the fate of those who had gone before them. Many still unemployed. Two employees in particular still writing for the FJ have many, many years seniority, but both have retired and elected to stay on part-time. Their reasons are personal, mostly they just aren't ready to let go and are willing to do the work for practically nothing. Some ex-employees freelance, the FJ pays $50 to $100 for a story, again because writers write. Those who have gone on to other careers miss the writing. A couple of freelancers write from out of state. As for your remark about management favorites, it applied in some cases. Particularly to those who did not question, complain or suggest that anything but the company line be followed. Those who will do best are those who cut their ties entirely with the paper and move on...it is a mess. I'm glad I left when I did.
In response to the question I was asked some time ago about how the company decided on whom to keep and who to push out the door during the first buyouts I first must make a disclaimer. I have no personal knowledge or sources as to any of the following.
The first buyout, which was two weeks pay for every year worked, was intended to lop off many of the folks who management believed had overstayed their welcome and who were at the top of the pay scale. Unfortunately for management, it didn’t encourage enough veteran folks to leave.
At that time there were no dire predictions of layoffs or transfers to other departments, divisions or properties to move enough folks into the retirement mode. I believe the first buyout was intended as much to lop off perceived ‘dead weight’ (management’s belief, not mine) as it was to save money. But saving money was certainly a major factor.
When the 2007 buyout came around, management did not want to miss the target and made the offer so tantalizing that it was basically one “that you couldn’t refuse.”
That offer, which is the one I took, was for four weeks pay for every year worked and an additional week for each year if you said good bye to the health coverage. Health coverage continued for those who wanted it.
It was an easy decision for me as I only planned to work until I was 62 anyway and basically the offer took me through my last two years without having to work. But the predictions that came with the offer were so dire that if you were even close to retirement age you couldn’t help but seriously consider it.
The publisher at the time stood before us and said there would never be a better offer and that conditions were so bad no one could predict what might happen if not enough people took the offer.
There were also threats that even though the lifetime job pledge was still in effect, that only meant that somewhere, someplace in the company you would be offered a job. In other words, a Flint reporter could find themselves mopping floors in Grand Rapids if they didn’t take the offer.
No question that the dire predictions and threats worked. I believe nearly 90 people (44 in editorial, I believe) took the offer. In fact so many people took the offer, including some they wanted to stay, that they had to start hiring again at a much lower pay and benefit scale, of course.
It was in this group that management sharpened the knives and let certain employees know that “they should take the buyout.” Lifetime job pledge, or not, they were focused on clearing out those they believed were not going along with the program.
I do have personal knowledge that some were quietly told that were OK and if they wanted to stay they would be OK, while others were told they were not guaranteed anything. So did favoritism come into play? Sure did.
Spared in all this were the very managers and leaders who had brought us to this state, but Booth managers look out for their own first, and always. Just a fact.
This was the moving sale management had hoped for in the first round of buyouts but that didn’t happen. Still a few of the folks they wanted to go away, stubbornly hung on. When the job pledge vaporized when the three newspapers on the east side of the state were no longer publishing daily, it was much easier to convince the remaining hangers on to leave with a subsequent bailout.
That’s a long answer to the fact that management wanted to significantly reduce payroll, now and in the future by hiring new employees at near fast food restaurant rates and benefits and using the occasion to winnow out the employees management believed were holding back the company from the future.
In the early buyouts, favorite employees were encouraged to stick around and expensive employees, no longer wanted by management, were given the golden push. Later, with the inconvenient lifetime job pledge out of the way, it was much easier to convince unwanted employees to leave.
Hope that answers the question. If not, I’m sure you will let me know.
In response to the question I was asked some time ago about how the company decided on whom to keep and who to push out the door during the first buyouts I first must make a disclaimer. I have no personal knowledge or sources as to any of the following.
The first buyout, which was two weeks pay for every year worked, was intended to lop off many of the folks who management believed had overstayed their welcome and who were at the top of the pay scale. Unfortunately for management, it didn’t encourage enough veteran folks to leave.
At that time there were no dire predictions of layoffs or transfers to other departments, divisions or properties to move enough folks into the retirement mode. I believe the first buyout was intended as much to lop off perceived ‘dead weight’ (management’s belief, not mine) as it was to save money. But saving money was certainly a major factor.
When the 2007 buyout came around, management did not want to miss the target and made the offer so tantalizing that it was basically one “that you couldn’t refuse.”
That offer, which is the one I took, was for four weeks pay for every year worked and an additional week for each year if you said good bye to the health coverage. Health coverage continued for those who wanted it.
It was an easy decision for me as I only planned to work until I was 62 anyway and basically the offer took me through my last two years without having to work. But the predictions that came with the offer were so dire that if you were even close to retirement age you couldn’t help but seriously consider it.
The publisher at the time stood before us and said there would never be a better offer and that conditions were so bad no one could predict what might happen if not enough people took the offer.
There were also threats that even though the lifetime job pledge was still in effect, that only meant that somewhere, someplace in the company you would be offered a job. In other words, a Flint reporter could find themselves mopping floors in Grand Rapids if they didn’t take the offer.
No question that the dire predictions and threats worked. I believe nearly 90 people (44 in editorial, I believe) took the offer. In fact so many people took the offer, including some they wanted to stay, that they had to start hiring again at a much lower pay and benefit scale, of course.
It was in this group that management sharpened the knives and let certain employees know that “they should take the buyout.” Lifetime job pledge, or not, they were focused on clearing out those they believed were not going along with the program.
I do have personal knowledge that some were quietly told that were OK and if they wanted to stay they would be OK, while others were told they were not guaranteed anything. So did favoritism come into play? Sure did.
Spared in all this were the very managers and leaders who had brought us to this state, but Booth managers look out for their own first, and always. Just a fact.
This was the moving sale management had hoped for in the first round of buyouts but that didn’t happen. Still a few of the folks they wanted to go away, stubbornly hung on. When the job pledge vaporized when the three newspapers on the east side of the state were no longer publishing daily, it was much easier to convince the remaining hangers on to leave with a subsequent bailout.
That’s a long answer to the fact that management wanted to significantly reduce payroll, now and in the future by hiring new employees at near fast food restaurant rates and benefits and using the occasion to winnow out the employees management believed were holding back the company from the future.
In the early buyouts, favorite employees were encouraged to stick around and expensive employees, no longer wanted by management, were given the golden push. Later, with the inconvenient lifetime job pledge out of the way, it was much easier to convince unwanted employees to leave.
Hope that answers the question. If not, I’m sure you will let me know.
Thanks for your thorough reply, Jim. Yes, it answers my questions.
Post a Comment