Good piece on Buffalo News Sports Dept

[Cripple Creek]

20 minutes ago, BringBackFergy said:

Did you know if you want to read a Buffalo News Sports story you have to pay a fee? There's a firewall. Ridiculous!!

I did not know, that topic is thread worthy. Why hasn’t this been discussed?

[ricojes]

26 minutes ago, BringBackFergy said:

Did you know if you want to read a Buffalo News Sports story you have to pay a fee? There's a firewall. Ridiculous!!

Do they make them pay for Cleveland news?

Edited June 26, 2018 by ricojes

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, baskingridgebillsfan said:

it is hard to find fault with the papers point of view.  Sullivan in particular would find or pivot to negativity on every occasion.  Sometimes as a fan you just want to enjoy the moment. Even if the big picture maybe cloudy.  Every now and than it is nice to revel in a victory without some pointing out all of the negatives that still exists.  After awhile everything written was negative and than it became personal.  The treatment of Whaley in particular was disgraceful.  To be honest Sullivan should have been shown the door after his 20 year to last question to Cam at the Super bowl.    

 

 

He wasn't let go because the BN knew readers like you read "everything written on every occasion" by Sullivan.

 

Then the BN decides to launch online content (Blitz) with poor planning and wildly optimistic and absurd projected subscriber revenue projections.  It tanks and they lose money.  Then they look around at ways to cut costs.  Their most expensive assets in the sports department are targeted.  They are offered buyouts.  One of them (likely the highest paid) has his column taken away before offered the buyout, to make his decision.....easier.

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

4 hours ago, Estelle Getty said:

How many times do you see Cleveland journalist breaking a story? (all of the time). 

Please substantiate and clarify your claim.  Which journalists?  Cleveland Plain Dealer staffers?  Breaking stories regarding the Browns?  

[Inigo Montoya]

The OP has a point.  It seemed that over the years, the Buffalo News beat reporters slowly morphed from reporting on the Bills, to being opinion writers about the Bills.  

 

Since a lot of what they wrote about the Bills ended up being negative during the Drought, they probably were not liked very much by the people at One Bills Drive and their sources inside the organization slowly dried up.  

 

I hope they bring in some new reporters who don’t have all the scar tissue that Sully and the others had after years of being immersed in following a dysfunctional team.  I know there were times in the past twenty years when I got so disgusted I just had to turn off the TV and walk away for the sake of my own sanity.  

 

There were entire seasons where I just didn’t follow the Bills as closely because the team was so bad.  It made me miserable watching them and it just wasn’t worth it to me.  I’ve been that way with the Sabres the last few years.

 

The beat reporters didn’t have that luxury and I think over time it effected how they covered the Bills, especially Sully. It’s time for a fresh start at the Buffalo News with some new beat reporters who haven’t been beaten down for years. 

 

Edited June 26, 2018 by Inigo Montoya

[plenzmd1]

15 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

He wasn't let go because the BN knew readers like you read "everything written on every occasion" by Sullivan.

 

Then the BN decides to launch online content (Blitz) with poor planning and wildly optimistic and absurd projected subscriber revenue projections.  It tanks and they lose money.  Then they look around at ways to cut costs.  Their most expensive assets in the sports department are targeted.  They are offered buyouts.  One of them (likely the highest paid) has his column taken away before offered the buyout, to make his decision.....easier.

where did you read the Blitz lost money? I don't remember seeing that. If I remember the Rumblings article correctly, Connoly stated they tried the Blitz as its an easy ramp up and easy to exit with no huge sunk costs. Now guys like Sullivan and Gleason thought that was turning a newspaper into a fansite, and I get the opposition they may have had to that.

 

But I also get traditional newspaper revenue model is disappearing, and new things have to be tried. In Silicon Valley, that attempt would be applauded, and only part of failure that is critized is if you do not see the mistake soon enough. @KD in CA can attest to this.

 

But I am fairly certain the Blitz had ZERO to do with them losing money.

Edited June 26, 2018 by plenzmd1

[Mr. WEO]

6 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

where did you read the Blitz lost money? I don't remember seeing that. If I remember the Rumblings article correctly, Connoly stated they tried the Blitz as its an easy ramp up and easy to exit with no huge sunk costs. Now guys like Sullivan and Gleason thought that was turning a newspaper into a fansite, and I get the opposition they may have had to that.

 

But I also get traditional newspaper revenue model is disappearing, and new things have to be tried. In Silicon Valley, that attempt would be applauded, and only part of failure that is critized is if you do not see the mistake soon enough. @KD in CA can attest to this.

 

But I am fairly certain the Blitz had ZERO to do with them losing money.

 

The BN had a losing Q.  The Blitz, hoping for 100k subscribers, got a couple of thousand.  If not the direct cause of the loss, the decision to launch, the poor result, and the quarterly loss are clearly tied together.  Despite the botched launch, they are going all in and are losing money.  It's a sports content product and they needed to cut costs in the sports dept.  The most effective way any company cuts staff costs is to eliminate the few at the top of the salary scale and replace them (or redistribute their duties) to cheaper hires.

 

That's what happened at the BN.  If people here  (and the BN) want to spin it as guys like Sully and Gleason and their work product were (suddenly) going to be a drag on subscribers and that's what prompted this business decision, that's fine too.  But i'm guessing that if (of course he never would, but..) Sully said, "hey, I'll stay for the union minimum for a new hire if I can keep my column", he would still be there. 

[plenzmd1]

15 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

The BN had a losing Q.  The Blitz, hoping for 100k subscribers, got a couple of thousand.  If not the direct cause of the loss, the decision to launch, the poor result, and the quarterly loss are clearly tied together.  Despite the botched launch, they are going all in and are losing money.  It's a sports content product and they needed to cut costs in the sports dept.  The most effective way any company cuts staff costs is to eliminate the few at the top of the salary scale and replace them (or redistribute their duties) to cheaper hires.

 

That's what happened at the BN.  If people here  (and the BN) want to spin it as guys like Sully and Gleason and their work product were (suddenly) going to be a drag on subscribers and that's what prompted this business decision, that's fine too.  But i'm guessing that if (of course he never would, but..) Sully said, "hey, I'll stay for the union minimum for a new hire if I can keep my column", he would still be there. 

that column as long as hell, and I have no desire to read it again...but I am fairly certain the Blitz had ZERO to do with the quarterly losses. Yes they were hoping for 100K subs(edit) here is the exact quote from the article   

Connelly denies promising 100,000 subscriptions. The Buffalo News would need 83,000 total digital subscriptions to pay for their newsroom, according to a memo distributed to staff.

He says they didn’t go into the BN Blitz model with a plan for how many subscriptions they would sell because the business model could be changed relatively quickly.

“We would figure out very quickly what worked and what didn’t,” said Connelly, citing digital page view numbers as an example. “It didn’t feel very high stakes because you can ramp something up quickly, and you can ramp something down overnight.”

That type of short-term adjustment is commonplace in digital media, but not common in the newspaper industry. That may have been what rubbed some writers the wrong way.

“I thought they were starting to lose their way as a newspaper and becoming more of a business,” said Gleason of the motivation behind the moves.

( btw, the 83k would pay for the entire newsroom, not just the sports desk)

Now, appears the established guys felt they were left out of this decision process and are killing the model..shcoking! They wanted to the business like a ....BUSINESS.. n  if they got zero subs the sunk costs were minimal, and I do not believe the ongoing expense was much of anything. Spinning up a site with content generated by folks already under contract does not place much of an additional cost burden on the paper.

 

Is it your contention that absent the Blitz that none of the restructuring would be happening? 

Edited June 26, 2018 by plenzmd1

[MJS]

On 6/24/2018 at 5:40 AM, oldmanfan said:

It's a tough time to be in the news business, and hard decisions are being made by many papers across the country.

 

They have to evolve, and that means lots of change.

 

I'm not going to lament the fall of an archaic industry.

[Lurker]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

He wasn't let go because the BN knew readers like you read "everything written on every occasion" by Sullivan.

 

Then the BN decides to launch online content (Blitz) with poor planning and wildly optimistic and absurd projected subscriber revenue projections.  It tanks and they lose money.  Then they look around at ways to cut costs.  Their most expensive assets in the sports department are targeted.  They are offered buyouts.  One of them (likely the highest paid) has his column taken away before offered the buyout, to make his decision.....easier.

 

Sounds like the Sabres tanking to me.   Two steps backward to ensure a better future.   Brilliant!

 

And BTW, you keep saying "readers like you read 'everything written on every occasion' by Sullivan."   That's your opinion, but doubt it.   I stopped reading him many years ago and I know a number of friends and colleagues who did the same.   It may seem like "TSW is taking about Sully all the time," but that's a small and not very representative subset of the real world (or even the majority of TSW).    He was stale, boring and "bad for business" a long time before the latest buyout wave...

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

10 minutes ago, Lurker said:

 

Sounds like the Sabres tanking to me.   Two steps backward to ensure a better future.   Brilliant!

 

And BTW, you keep saying "readers like you read 'everything written on every occasion' by Sullivan."   That's your opinion, but doubt it.   I stopped reading him many years ago and I know a number of friends and colleagues who did the same.   It may seem like "TSW is taking about Sully all the time," but that's a small and not very representative subset of the real world (or even the majority of TSW).    He was stale, boring and "bad for business" a long time before the latest buyout wave...

 

 

 

His own deputy editor said he was the top read in the department, I believe.

 

If he was "bad for business" he would have been gone "a long time before the latest buyout wave", wouldn't he?  Doesn't that just make sense?

 

If the BN was rolling in revenue, it seems pretty clear that they would not have offered Sullivan (or the others) a buyout.  Now they are in the red and have to cut costs.  They target the staff that likely cost the most (they were senior people).  In Jerry's case (and Gleason's) they first pull their columns, knowing it would lead both of them to easily accept the buyout.

 

Jerry's gone, and the Blitz is in the tank.  Turns out that it wasn't Jerry after all.  Readers don't want to pay for a site that has a bunch of re-hashed articles and columns by low level staffers fluffing the Bills and Sabres.  We can all get that for free at buffalobills.com.

 

 

1 hour ago, plenzmd1 said:

that column as long as hell, and I have no desire to read it again...but I am fairly certain the Blitz had ZERO to do with the quarterly losses. Yes they were hoping for 100K subs(edit) here is the exact quote from the article   

Connelly denies promising 100,000 subscriptions. The Buffalo News would need 83,000 total digital subscriptions to pay for their newsroom, according to a memo distributed to staff.

He says they didn’t go into the BN Blitz model with a plan for how many subscriptions they would sell because the business model could be changed relatively quickly.

“We would figure out very quickly what worked and what didn’t,” said Connelly, citing digital page view numbers as an example. “It didn’t feel very high stakes because you can ramp something up quickly, and you can ramp something down overnight.”

That type of short-term adjustment is commonplace in digital media, but not common in the newspaper industry. That may have been what rubbed some writers the wrong way.

“I thought they were starting to lose their way as a newspaper and becoming more of a business,” said Gleason of the motivation behind the moves.

( btw, the 83k would pay for the entire newsroom, not just the sports desk)

Now, appears the established guys felt they were left out of this decision process and are killing the model..shcoking! They wanted to the business like a ....BUSINESS.. n  if they got zero subs the sunk costs were minimal, and I do not believe the ongoing expense was much of anything. Spinning up a site with content generated by folks already under contract does not place much of an additional cost burden on the paper.

 

Is it your contention that absent the Blitz that none of the restructuring would be happening? 

 

No, losing money is losing money.  They needed to slash costs and the sports dept was fat with high salaries.  they used some marketing data to justify their dumping Sullivan.

 

The Blitz is part and parcel of their overall effort to move away from an ad based business and toward a user pay business. It flopped.  Combined with a first long Q in years and panic ensues.

[plenzmd1]

5 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

 

No, losing money is losing money.  They needed to slash costs and the sports dept was fat with high salaries.  they used some marketing data to justify their dumping Sullivan.

 

The Blitz is part and parcel of their overall effort to move away from an ad based business and toward a user pay business. It flopped.  Combined with a first long Q in years and panic ensues.

1

Yep, just thought you were making the point the loss was DUE to the Blitz..which i do not believe it was. 

 

And my read of the situation was not panic, but taking advantage of the loss   under Guild rules t to make changes they most likely wanted to make..but were prevented from doing so under the CBA

[Mr. WEO]

18 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

Yep, just thought you were making the point the loss was DUE to the Blitz..which i do not believe it was. 

 

And my read of the situation was not panic, but taking advantage of the loss   under Guild rules t to make changes they most likely wanted to make..but were prevented from doing so under the CBA

 

It's not so  much the Blitz as a money loser, but the Blitz as a barometer of how badly their pay-to-read business model was going to struggle.

 

The guild rules, as someone posted last night, regard laying off or firing staff to save money.

 

All 6 staffers took buyouts so the BN could have made these moves any time in the past.  They only did when they started losing money.

[Lurker]

39 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

All 6 staffers took buyouts so the BN could have made these moves any time in the past.  They only did when they started losing money.

 

I'll post this again.   Per the Guild contract, the only way staff reductions could occur is if the News was losing money.   That's why it happened now, as opposed to "any time in the past."   

 

 

Article 5 – Job Security

 

1. There will be no discharge or dismissal except for just and sufficient cause

 

 

Article 6 — Dismissals to Reduce the Force

 

1. The News is responsible for controlling the size of its working force. Any dismissal to reduce the force will be only for economic reasons to remedy the stability of the newspaper.   [i.e., the BN's hands were tied during those previous quarters when they were in the black]

 

 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

2 hours ago, MJS said:

 

They have to evolve, and that means lots of change.

 

I'm not going to lament the fall of an archaic industry.

 

16 minutes ago, Lurker said:

 

I'll post this again.   Per the Guild contract, the only way staff reductions could occur is if the News was losing money.   That's why it happened now, as opposed to "any time in the past."   

 

 

Article 5 – Job Security

 

1. There will be no discharge or dismissal except for just and sufficient cause

 

 

Article 6 — Dismissals to Reduce the Force

 

1. The News is responsible for controlling the size of its working force. Any dismissal to reduce the force will be only for economic reasons to remedy the stability of the newspaper.   [i.e., the BN's hands were tied during those previous quarters when they were in the black]

 

 

 

Is a buyout a dismissal?

 

either way anyone in the newspaper industry shouldn’t be shocked at the death of the industry. 

 

Blogs like this are more interactive, more informative, more real time and as it’s cloud sourced there isn’t a coordinated agenda. 

 

Stagnant Newspapers lost ground on opinng and analysis because collectively hobbyists seem to do it better... 

 

The only edge left was scooping the story, and exclusivity....  Twitter took that away

 

 

[Lurker]

52 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

Is a buyout a dismissal?

 

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/employee-buyout-work-69288.html

 

"If your company is facing the possibility of unpopular layoffs, you may be able to encourage some employees to resign or retire voluntarily by offering a buyout. A buyout typically includes an offer of severance pay for a particular length of time and the continuance of other fringe benefits. You can negotiate the terms so they are favorable to both the company and the employee. Offering buyouts instead of laying off or firing employees can reduce lawsuits and bad press for the company."

 

 

With regard to the recent BN situation:

 

http://www.buffaloguild.org/2018/06/05/targeted-buyouts-in-editorial-follow-first-quarter-losses-from-the-news/

 

 

Edited June 26, 2018 by Lurker

[Rochesterfan]

5 hours ago, plenzmd1 said:

Yep, just thought you were making the point the loss was DUE to the Blitz..which i do not believe it was. 

 

And my read of the situation was not panic, but taking advantage of the loss   under Guild rules t to make changes they most likely wanted to make..but were prevented from doing so under the CBA

 

 

I agree - the Blitz did not seem like a money winner, but considering the writers were all ready on staff - it was not going to be much of a loser.  The issue is if the writers don’t think it will work or is not a model they embrace - it never has much of a chance to take off.

 

I think the loss allowed them to offer the buyouts and they got what they wanted and a bit more.  They also stated that although they offered buyouts to everyone - some they accepted and some they denied - that tells me they had no issue letting Bucky and Sully go in this case.

[Mr. WEO]

9 hours ago, Lurker said:

 

I'll post this again.   Per the Guild contract, the only way staff reductions could occur is if the News was losing money.   That's why it happened now, as opposed to "any time in the past."   

 

 

Article 5 – Job Security

 

1. There will be no discharge or dismissal except for just and sufficient cause

 

 

Article 6 — Dismissals to Reduce the Force

 

1. The News is responsible for controlling the size of its working force. Any dismissal to reduce the force will be only for economic reasons to remedy the stability of the newspaper.   [i.e., the BN's hands were tied during those previous quarters when they were in the black]

 

 

 

 

You can post it as many times as you wish.  No one was "dismissed" nor "discharged".

 

They were offered different job responsibilities...or, if they decoded to voluntarily leave the company, an extra bit of compensation.  The guild does not comment on buyouts.

 

Your citation has no meaning here.

[Punching Bag]

Not sure how you can offer a buyout and when employee says "yes" pull it away.  Certainly not good for morale.  Now if you told employees that buyouts were available but number were limited and by guild rules more senior people have priority that is different but the article posted was frankly from the point of view of the disgruntled grunts some of which will never work again.

[Lurker]

13 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

You can post it as many times as you wish.  No one was "dismissed" nor "discharged".

 

They were offered different job responsibilities...or, if they decoded to voluntarily leave the company, an extra bit of compensation.  The guild does not comment on buyouts.

 

Your citation has no meaning here.

 

Semantics.   Buyout or layoff, certain individuals were going to no longer be on the payroll.     

 

The chances of Sully and Buckster taking a reporter role was slim to none, and slim had left the building.   Both sides knew it, and management exploited it.    It could happen politely (buyout) or not (layoff).   But only because of the "economic reasons to remedy the stability of the newspaper" clause...