USA Today’s Mandatory 1-Week Furlough
1-liner, Media Gossip/Musings January 15th. 2009, 12:45pmMedia: Two ways to look at the largest circulation newspaper in the country, USA Today, making employees take a mandatory one-week unpaid furlough (read: vacation). On one hand, it’s better than taking a pay cut or shedding staff again. On the other hand … how many bullets are left in Gannett’s gun? (E&P)
20 Responses to “USA Today’s Mandatory 1-Week Furlough”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
January 15th, 2009 at 12:50 PM
Clearly, not many. All employees here at the Rochester D&C must schedule their furlough by March 29.
January 15th, 2009 at 12:54 PM
does anyone think that we are approaching a society where one day there will be no newspapers in circulation and all have been put on-line only?
January 15th, 2009 at 12:54 PM
Why not keep all of the same writers, produce all of the same articles, and have the entire thing availabe on-line in a format akin to a newspaper? I’ve never understood what’s taking these companies so long to figure out the print version is fucked, poor economy or not.
January 15th, 2009 at 1:04 PM
As soon as someone finds a profitable online only-model for a major newspaper, they’ll let you know.
January 15th, 2009 at 1:07 PM
A lot of it has to do with advertising. A lot of businesses aren’t sold on the whole internet advertising model. It’s hard to make that appeal.
Plus, a lot of newspapers that are making the online transition STILL aren’t doing too well. It’s not like a lot of these newspapers aren’t trying.
January 15th, 2009 at 1:08 PM
The idiots at Gannett/USA Today are raising their 2009 Advertising rates too. What are they thinking? “Lets see, nobody is buying ad space. Lets raise our rates and see what happens.” Is Devin Harris’s next baby-momma running the paper?
January 15th, 2009 at 1:21 PM
Right now with the economy so bad, it doesn’t matter what business model a paper uses because companies aren’t spending as much on advertising – in paper or online. And some companies who usually advertise are folding. Papers want to find an online-only model, but now isn’t the right economic climate to experiment.
January 15th, 2009 at 1:23 PM
Don’t get me started on these big media companies. I get pissed just thinking about these bozos.
January 15th, 2009 at 1:27 PM
I almost wish billionaires would start buying up individual papers. That way the ones that are profitable wouldn’t have to try and carry the bad ones.
January 15th, 2009 at 1:32 PM
Damnit, didn’t mean to post twice. My bad.
January 15th, 2009 at 1:40 PM
My wife works for a paper in the Gannett family. It is a small town paper, I can’t really see it going away. My wife’s week off is March 23-27, and yes, they all have to be done by the end of the 1st quarter. We assume there will be more in the future, but with a full week she can get unemployment, so it isn’t that bad. With also taking the kids out of daycare for that week, we might come out ahead.
January 15th, 2009 at 1:50 PM
does anyone here subscribe to a newspaper?
January 15th, 2009 at 1:58 PM
TBL — Yes, I get the Sunday edition of the Democrat and Chronicle delivered.
January 15th, 2009 at 2:02 PM
One of the reasons I don’t subscribe to satellite radio is that our local NPR station covers local news extraordinarily well. It’s all I need for my commute.
The station, to my knowledge, isn’t having near the problem keeping up with donations that the newspaper is having at staying in the black. If you lose your local paper, I highly recommend throwing $20 or $50 at your local NPR station.
January 15th, 2009 at 2:03 PM
TBL – yes, I get the Ponte Vedra Recorder once a week.
January 15th, 2009 at 2:06 PM
I like NPR.
January 15th, 2009 at 2:17 PM
I have the Del Boca Vista Herald weekend plan.
/Hernia’d
January 15th, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Primer: I work at a Gannett TV station.
To answer a previous question about the March dates: we were asked to take the furlough in the first quarter of 2009. What pisses people off here is that there’s no guarantee we won’t be asked to do this in the other three quarters.
I also don’t know why large companies (like Gannett) have to buy small ass papers that don’t bring in that much revenue. They’d be better off selling the small papers back to the community. As far as I know, the company is trying to build more ad revenue through the web. The problem is, television reporters can’t write worth shit.
January 15th, 2009 at 5:02 PM
You write for broadcast, as opposed to print.
January 15th, 2009 at 5:16 PM
I still get the Chicago Sun-Times. Although it looks like Mariotti was right when he said he’d be surprised if the paper lasted much longer. I happen to know my delivery guy and he told me that 2 years ago, he had 70 deliveries in my sub-division. Today he has 12. Even the paper itself is a shell of what it was. It used to be anywhere from 90 to 120 pages depending on the day. Now it’s 50 to 70. No more television reviews, no more media reviews, fewer editorials. It’s a shame really.