Editorial Workforce Reduction at WaTi
Before taking the helm at the Washington Times about two months ago, John Solomon worked for years as a reporter at the Washington Post and AP. Never let it be said, however, that the guy couldn't write like a CEO.
Last night, Solomon sent an e-mail out to his people seeking to update them on "some important developments."
Then came a line about "reshaping the newsroom for the challenges of the 21st century"--a classic of ’00s newsroom rhetoric. This reshaping, noted Solomon, will require "tough decisions."
After that, Solomon thanks his roughly 200-member staff for cost-cutting suggestions submitted as part of something known at the paper as "Blue Sky questionnaires." Those suggestions, he says, have moved the paper closer to profitability.
But not quite close enough! And if you're in the news biz, you know what that means. A new budgetary year for the Times started on April 1, and profitability considerations, says the editor, "will require us to say goodbye to some colleagues we have known for many years and to celebrate their many accomplishments as they leave us."
We all know what those celebrations feel like. Some cake, some tears, and a corny newspaper mockup by the folks in the art department to fete the outgoing victims of downsizing.
Full memo after the jump.
Folks:
I want to update you on some important developments that are about to occur. As we discussed in our private coffees a few weeks ago, reshaping the newsroom for the challenges of the 21st century and moving the entire company toward profitability were going to require many tough decisions. This is especially true in the current marketplace where traditional revenues are down across the industry. With the arrival of our new budget year, the first round of those tough decisions has arrived: we must determine the appropriate size of the newsroom for its new mission and current resources.
We have reviewed all of the ideas from those of you who responded to the Blue Sky questionnaires and probed deeply into every aspect of our finances, operations and news coverage to achieve significant savings. That effort has already moved us much closer to our goal of profitability. But we still need to find additional savings under our 2008 budget that takes effect today. And just as important, we need to inject new skill sets into the newsroom to ensure we can compete in the news marketplace of tomorrow.
Over the next few weeks, we will make a difficult journey. The effort will be expeditious and fair, even-handed and humane. It will require us to say goodbye to some colleagues we have known for many years and to celebrate their many accomplishments as they leave us. It will also allow us to welcome some new colleagues whose skills will improve our capabilities, particularly in the digital arena. By the end of April, we will have achieved a newsroom that is stronger and better aligned for the future.
The Human Resources Department will provide each affected employee in the coming days with the necessary information about the skills review process, severance and outplacement assistance. If you have any questions, in the meantime, please feel free to contact Ted Agres, David Jones or myself in the newsroom or Sonya Jenkins and Sherri Harris in Human Resources. We'll also have an opportunity to discuss this at a newsroom-wide meeting planned for the afternoon of Thursday, April 10.
John
Comments
Leave a Reply
You can follow any responses to this entry through its comments RSS feed.
11:37 am
Nothing shocking here. It's an open secret that the Washington Times has been a money-losing enterprise since its inception. The only reason it stays in business is due to massive subsidies from the Moonies' organizations. Were it not for sucking on the teat of the corporate Moonies organization, the free-market-lovin' Washington Times would long ago have gone bankrupt. It's generally a crappy product, with only a few glimmers of unbiased and non-ideological talent on the metro and sports pages.
1:09 pm
Skipper's right about the Times' finances. But what makes this interesting is that they feel the need to reduce the workforce at all. They weren't making money before, they aren't making it now, why go through all the thrashing of paring down the work force? If anything, now would be a good time for the Times to take advantage of the seemingly bottomless cashpot of Moonie money, and rage against current trends.
Yes, if market forces were allowed to prevail, it would have shuttered long ago. But since it has the cash to buck market forces, why bother playing this game at all and parrot slash and burn strategies of other newspapers?
It's never been a great product top-to-bottom, and it's become even more narrow in the last decade of the Pruden era. But a new beginning with a new editor should mean new initiatives. Bringing Solomon in and tying his hands with layoffs isn't going to improve its market position in the least.
.
2:01 pm
Well said, DTR. There is a great opportunity to pounce on the weaknesses of others, perhaps even expand into other markets where profitability might be more easily obtained. While I am no fan of the Washington Times' political agenda, it is missing the greatest chance for growth in its history -- and in a presidential election year, yet. Foolish decision on the ownership's part.
3:25 pm
How many employees do you have to fire to make up for $100 million in losses a year? Will Solomon answer the question of whether his new direction jibes with Rev. Moon's corporate mission statement of having founded the paper as "the instrument in spreading the truth about God to the world?" (quoted in Washington Post)
6:15 pm
To correct Mr. Gorenfeld's misstatement: The Washington Times has never lost "$100 million ... a year." That's several multiples of the entire budget of the operation.
It has been reported that, over the first 20 years of its existence, The Washington Times lost a cumulative total of $100 million (i.e.,an average $5 million annual loss). But it has to be understood that most of the big losses occurred in the early years of the operation, when the company was purchasing and improving its facilities and equipment -- and even, at one point, operating foreign bureaus in London, Paris, Tokyo, etc. Over the past 15 years, the company has drastically reduced costs and thus reduced its losses.
7:04 pm
"...please feel free to contact Ted Agres, David Jones or myself..."
so writes the ed-in-chief...Oh man! Where's the copy desk when you need it?
9:32 pm
Bo Hi Pak said early on the paper had lost 250 million. What years did it make this profit to catch up form even that early dates losses?
Pak would have been the one I would suspect to spin the figure the lowest, at least until I saw Robert's spin above.
Don't remember the exact date Pak was quoted in the WP as saying 250 million but it was earlier than 1991 when Moon said he had spent a billion on his effort to move the nation right wing. By 2000 the figures were 1.7 billion in the WP. And as I am sure Robert knows, former WT 20 year reporter put thew figure at 3 billion.
No one has ever claimed it has made a dime, ever. Moon certainly brags about how much it has cost him. But when did they even recoup even that 250 million?
Robert, I saw Pruden on C-Span's Q&A and Lamb asked him about finaoices at the paper and Pruden started squirning around and let Lamb know q
Hey Robert, did you ever finish your discussion with Rose? I laughed my rear off at you dodging all those questions about Moon funding North Korea given your belief the commies are coming to get you.
here's the links - I never saw any after this - do you have the links to any more?
http://tinyurl.com/2p9kof
http://tinyurl.com/2r5m8v
http://tinyurl.com/3423g3
10:02 pm
I apologize me and my fat finger hitting the enter...let's try from scratch:
Bo Hi Pak said early on the paper had lost 250 million. What years did it make this profit to catch up from even from the early years losses? Pak would have been the one I would have suspected to spin the figure the lowest, at least until I saw Robert’s spin above.
Don’t remember the exact date of Pak’s quote in the WP as saying 250 million but it was earlier than 1991 when Moon said himself bragged that he had spent a billion on his effort to move the nation right wing and bring himself face around the world. That was about the time Moon said he had to raise 7 million a month for the WT.
By around 2000 the figures were $1.7 billion in the WP. And as I am sure Robert knows, former WT 20 year reporter, George Archibald put the figure at 3 billion.
No one has ever claimed it has made a dime, ever. Moon certainly brags about how much it has cost him. But when did they even recoup even some of that 250 million Pak mentioned?
Robert, I saw Pruden on C-Span’s Q&A and Brian Lamb asked him about finances at the paper and Pruden started squirming around and let Lamb know real fast he didn’t know a anything about the finances of the paper. So, you know, Robert, and Pruden had no clue? Should we call that "willful" on his part?
Which brings up the next question: Solomon says they “probed deeply into every aspect of our finances.”
Since it is well known, the pool of cash Moon uses to fund his world wide influencing campaign from a pool which includes hundreds of millions, if not billions, made swindling the Japanese, targeting widows.
Read how here: http://tinyurl.com/39ejt
Here’s the totals of claims: http://tinyurl.com/yotod4
The only started taking claims in 1987. The claims are for over 800 million USD and the group that has beaten the Unification Church in court says the figures are a fraction of the damages to the citizens of Japan.
I am sure the paper can come up with some spin about how they have been funded all these years, maybe include it one of those articles telling the right wingers how much they should despise George Soros.
Hey Robert, did you ever finish your discussion with Rose? I laughed my rear off at you dodging all those questions about Moon funding North Korea, given your belief the commies are coming to get you.
here’s the links - I never saw any after this - do you have the links to any more?
http://tinyurl.com/2p9kof
http://tinyurl.com/2r5m8v
http://tinyurl.com/3423g3
7:54 am
Hopefully the cuts won't affect the sports, food, auto, and real estate sections all of which are significantly better than that in the Post.
9:47 am
"It will also allow us to welcome some new colleagues whose skills will improve our capabilities, particularly in the digital arena."
Seems to me that they really want to bolster the Web staff and bring the newspaper into the 21st century. But in this day and age, no one is simply adding staff without making cuts elsewhere. In other words, we're seeing the Times start to operate like every other newspaper on the planet. But at least in this instance, they're not just cutting for cutting's sake. There's a broader strategy here that actually makes quite a bit of sense.
Sure, maybe they could simply turn to Rev. Moon for more money, but it's possible the Moonies have decided that they really want to operate a profitable product. My guess is that's why they brought in Solomon in the first place...to give the paper some credibility, change the culture of the place and improve the product overall.
1:45 pm
Why on earth would anyone who is sane fire people who've given their blood, sweat and tears and hard work to a SUBSIDIZED newspaper that gets most of its money from the crazy Unification Church and that has lost at least $1 billion during the last 26 years? Does that make sense to anyone? No, it doesn't. Among many problems, the Times has been plagued by ridiculously inept management--literally people in editing and management positions who don't know what they're doing--from the start, and it's only gotten worse. Firing good people for no good reason is no way to go through life. Fat with subsidized money, drunk on your own power and stupid in management is also no way to go through life.