Less is more, so will we lose managers?

When I read this morning that new Northcliffe group managing director Steve Auckland had announced he was to appoint three regional publishers to replace the roles of regional editors and MDs I was actually quite pleased.

I'm not a completely heartless bastard, however if there are cuts to be made - and I'm not completely averse to that looking around some newsrooms at the complete losers drawing a wage - I would prefer to start the cull at the top and work down, rather than do away with roles which are needed in a bid to avoid paying off the regional director of useless shit and management speak.

Imagine my disappointment then when we discover that while the roles will "replace" those of regional editors and MDs, in the next breath "Northcliffe says no one is likely to lose their job".

So, in fact what I thought was a decent start to lowering costs for struggling newspapers across the UK, is actually just bringing in another manager on big money.

*Sigh*

However, perhaps all hope is not lost.

Part of my initial thinking on the move - back when I thought it was perhaps the most sensible thing I'd heard for a while - was that maybe, just maybe, Auckland was backing up his promise "to do away with the corporate stuff and get the editors and the managing directors free to do what they want to do".

And it still could be - with an ever-more-distant 'regional publisher' (let's face it, there will be three of the feckers covering the entire country), I don't see how they can be hands-on in their approach.

Fingers crossed more power returns to editors up and down the land, tasked merely with delivering certain things, and how they do it is up to them.

Then they can begin the middle-management cull.

Directors of public sector loss making advertising based in the office having pointless meetings everywhere, brace yourselves!

Falling off the North Cliffe?

I read with interest the Guardian interview with in-coming Northcliffe chief Steve Auckland.

Mr Auckland, who is now an industry God through his work making the Metro everyone's favourite news-for-nothing publication, was strangely forthright in his opinions, if not a little contradictory.

Take this quote for example:

"If you have stacks of titles and lots of loss-makers and lots publishing six days a week and not making money you have to look at the portfolio.

"I want a step change. It might be harsh but it gives a platform for the future. The key thing is a product portfolio review. We have to look at the number of titles and frequency of publishing."

I don't think anyone could argue with the first par. No business, run by the giant arses of Northcliffe, Newquest or otherwise, wants to keep running a title that continues to lose money year after year.

So fair enough.

However, the contradiction for me comes when the piece explains Auckland was "keen to stress he is not a hatchet man".

Well, I would suggest that's exactly what he is, judging by his own words. Threatening to look at all titles and the frequency of publishing is clearly an indication that the hatchet is about to be wielded.

There may be nothing wrong with that, but at least be honest.

Anyway, I'm merely nit-picking there.

There real interest comes with other remarks, particularly:

"Less is more is my motto: I want a clear vision at each operating centre. I'm trying to do away with the corporate stuff and getting the editors and the managing directors free to do what they want to do in their centres," he added.

"Originally regional newspapers were run by entrepreneurial-type people back in the halcyon days. I want to get back to that flexibility. If they want to change the cover price or business cards or say that publishing on one day, or two, or staying at six is most profitable then I want them to have that flexibility."

'Less is more', to idiots like me, can simply be truncated to 'less'. Again, Mr Auckland, please just be honest. Less will NEVER be more, it is a complete misnomer on every conceivable level.

We all understand the "halcyon days" went as soon as Gannett darkened UK doors, so please don't patronise us with the usual bullshit, we've had enough of 'aim higher' initiatives and the likes which always seem to make us more efficient and still manage to do away with hard-working people.

However, it cannot be disputed that Northcliffe does indeed now have less, or more, if you are Mr Auckland. 50% more, or less, in fact, as Peter Kirwan points out in his excellent blog.

"Overall, the numbers for the six years between 2005 and 2010 are remarkable:

Headcount: Down by over 50% from 8,013 to 3,817

Quoted cumulative cost savings: £125m

Quoted restructuring costs (incl. redundancy): £71m

Quoted write-downs in asset values: £200m"

So Mr Auckland, you have inherited a group which indeed has a lot 'more' than previously, so good luck with that.

But basically, what all of this ponderingly bad writing is attempting to convey is that, as Mr Kirwan also points out, "plans for industry consolidation have gone badly awry".

Indeed they have. Lord Rothermere couldn't flog Northcliffe a few years ago, so what hope now?

My bet is that we will see more and more dailies become weeklies - watch your backs any newspaper showing figures down 10%+ - and some under-performing weeklies either sold or merely closed down.

I am also intrigued by the idea that editors will suddenly be enjoying a new-found freedom under Mr Auckland to basically edit their papers.

I am eagerly awaiting the day this is put to the test by an editor who wishes to reward his staff with a pay rise, or an extra reporter...

I do love the term "consolidation" though, as it would suggest joining something together for an all-round gain, a positive, for growth.

And don't we all know that is absolute shite? Consolidation has brought nothing but evil to journalism.

Look at it like this: a sub hub is a group of sub editors consolidated to one location.

A good thing?

Fuck it, let's all have a drink.

The Next 18-20 Months for Newsquest

You have to wonder how the fuck these people sleep at night.

Yesterday's announcement that Newsquest chief executive Paul Davidson has been rewarded for his 'efforts' at the 'struggling' group with a lump of shares which will see him avoid the breadline for the foreseeable future.

Well, after breathing a huge sigh of relief for the miserable git, the usual explosion of rage at the mere mention of his name returned.

Let's remember...

Only last week, we learned that Newsquest London, apparently one of the more profitable groups in the Newsquest stable, had asked staff to consider voluntary redundancy just weeks after asking the same staff to take unpaid, furlough leave.

I will refrain from commenting on how those working at the London offices were told of this decision, one which could change their lives forever, as I am informed it was via a three-line email, but I can't believe that to be true? If it is, someone please email that to me and I will happily take a look.

Anyway, Mr Davidson is ultimately responsible for these staff - and let's be honest, Newsquest London is not the only branch which will be royally fucked over in the coming months - facing the end of their careers, or a decision which could see them abandon what they love.

But for what? Exactly how badly is a company doing when the likes of Davidson are receiving these stock options, potentially worth millions?

Again, I'll ask the question; how the fuck does he sleep at night?

I hate to keep on moaning about the seemingly-systematic destruction of newspapers by profit-hungry morons in ill-fitting suits in rather modern-looking and faceless ivory towers, but fuck it, they are killing everything we work for.

And here's my prediction Davidson, to save you and your money-grabbing cronies the bother of pretending to know what lies ahead for hundreds of newspapers and thousands of staff sweating every day to eek out a living so that you can line your fucking pockets with cash:

First of all, at the end of the year, Newsquest will scrape their ridiculously-high profit margin.

It will then - and only then - dawn on fools like you that this is simply not a sustainable position.

So, you will go to Gannett and tell them you would love to provide them with a 25% profit margin again in 2012 but that, unfortunately, you have nobody left to cut but that you will try.

At the end of the first quarter, despite only having a trainee reporter and a sub in every Newsquest centre across the land - many of which will be covering patches previously covered by at least three Newsquest groups - you still won't have hit the target.

Then, you will be sacked, or you will 'retire' as nob ends in the higher ranks of business call it, with a fucking enormous golden handshake for destroying something which meant so much to us, the journalists, the other Newsquest staff, and millions of readers.

And therein lies my theory on how foolish, greedy morons such as Paul Davidson sleep at night:

He knows all of this really, and is simply lining his pockets before the inevitable retirement comes.

And I for one, will be lovingly sending him a watch - £2.99 from Argos - engraved with the words: "Thanks Paul".

---

As usual feel free to follow me on Twitter - @haplesshack - or send me an email with your abuse. Thanks.

Where next for the cash cows?

So where next for regional newspapers?

We've had a week of speculation since figure for the likes of Newsquest and Northcliffe were released - both showing what we all knew really.

In summary, newspapers are still making quite a lot of money.

However, is has been the way for years, the profit margin is the issue for men in nice suits sitting in head offices up and down the land.

Among the latest to talk shit about the industry was a chap from Northcliffe, a man so nondescript I can't even remember his name.

Anyway, he said consolidation was needed in the industry, despite the fact that consolidation has been rampant in newspapers for years and look where it's got us.

He told Press Gazette: "Our attitude is we think it [consolidation] is worthwhile and a good thing for the industry because it will create bigger businesses who are more able to make the transition to the brave new world.

"There’s obviously going to be a further transition…We are not going to be the consolidator. We are not going to be acquiring other regional newspapers companies to consolidate with Northcliffe.

"I think we have other opportunities in the group for investment. But we are very content to go on operating Northcliffe, it makes good cash flow and so on."

Okay, so let's actually tell it like it is, shall we? Northcliffe thinks consolidation is needed, but won't be consolidating.

Does anyone else smell a 'come and get me' plea?

No wonder he thinks consolidation is needed when clearly Northcliffe would be hugely interested in getting rid of a cash cow that is struggling to produce milk in the quantities of years ago.

Let's not forget, it was Northcliffe who was for sale only a few years ago, only not sold.

So don't patronise us.

Meanwhile, in newsrooms up and down the country, we are being told of the continued squeeze on 'revenues' and the need to make cuts, take furlough leave and such like.

However, in among the headlines of Northcliffe effectively being up for sale, and the drop in 'revenues', it seems to have been missed that Northcliffe's operating profit last year increased - yes, increased - by 24% to £30 million.

That is on revenue down 10% year on year.

So just how hard is it out there? Being complete arses has earned Northcliffe £30 million, an increase.

Now I realise £20 million is a tiny sum of money, but why not just make that much profit in what is widely regarded as the worst recession we've seen, and keep a few of the jobs you've not replaced, or pay those who remain a little bit more?

I know, it's a crazy thought...

But the reality is that the newspaper industry has been a cash cow for a long time, and we - as well as out papers - are simply being milked for all we are worth until profits drop to, oh, I don't know, £10 million? Then we'll be sold off for pennies to another group who will do more of the same.

Depressing, I know, and if anyone can give me an alternative view of the future, I'd love to hear from you.

Email me at thehaplesshack@gmail.com, or chat to me on Twitter, @haplesshack

Inside what? Just get on with it Croydon...

Now, I'm not averse to a good old scrap, be it in print or behind closed doors, so I was particularly amused to see a little tete-a-tete developing between one London editor and a blogger this week.

The esteemed - only by himself admittedly - Inside Croydon recently had a bit of a rant against a campaign run by the Croydon Advertiser, a Northcliffe weeklie.

Inside Croydon claims the paper - in their 'it-was-us-what-won-it' edition - was in collusion with the councillor concerned over the results of a consultation.

Clearly, if Inside Croydon has any actual experience in a newsroom, he'll already know that no newspaper will run a campaign unless a. they can win it, or b. it is a hugely popular lost cause that not even the campaigners expect to win anyway.

So, we all take the Croydon Advertiser gloating with a pinch of salt, as every paper deserves to big itself up every now and again.

But not Mr Inside Croydon, he attacks the paper pretty harshly, with rapier-like wit such as:

"Yet the Croydon Sadvertiser, with its deadline of last Wednesday – a full seven days before the announcement is due – contained extensive details from what it claimed to be a leaked council report, alongside a lovingly staged picture of “Two Permits” Thomas and the paper’s editor receiving a massive ... 250 signatures [coughs with embarrassment].

"The Sadvertiser was very late to this particular story, despite being contacted by local residents’ groups nearly two months ago. In the end, the CRAPP (that’s not too rude; it means Croydon Residents Against Parking Plans) online campaign, and its dedicated band of supporters who leafleted and petitioned in their neighbourhoods, managed to raised [sic] nearly 10 times the number of signatures that the local newspaper did."

Again, as anyone who has ever been involved with regional/local/national newspapers knows, the last thing, the very, very last thing that anyone should do at this point is respond...

Well, I thought everyone knew that anyway.

Cue a rather tetchy response from Croydon Advertiser editor Glenn Ebrey in his online blog.

Glenn, in a total loss of any kind of editorial judgement, hits back with just as non-rapier-like wit, with such gems as:

"Firstly, he continually describes us as the Croydon S-Advertiser, which must have taken a whole 30 seconds to think up. No chance of a job on the subs desk with lame puns like that.

"Then, he goes on to criticise us for daring to start a campaign (a successful campaign, I might add) against Croydon Council’s parking proposals. If we hadn’t bothered with a campaign, we probably would have been criticised for that too. Isn’t campaigning what all good local newspapers should be doing?

"Next, we are slammed for having the cheek to report documents we obtained before their official publication. Isn’t that just good journalism Mr Insider?"

Well, not really Glenn, as anyone who knows anything about journalism will also know that in all probability, there was no Mission Impossible-esque espionage involved in getting the report. Or was there? If so, please email me with the details and I'll happily praise your reporter/s for their efforts!

Anyway, as shit as that response is, it's nothing to what Mr Ebrey does next.

Yes, in true local rag style, he challenges the Inside Croydon blogger to spend a day in his newsroom while boasting of the paper's circulation.

Again, anyone in papers knows this is total bollocks, so stop trying to kid yourself that the Croydon Advertiser is different from any other newspaper in the country Glenn and is enjoying a new-found period of growth and prosperity, it isn't.

However, he wrote: "The mystery blogger also suggests we have an “increasingly small circulation”. Last time I checked, our papers were distributed to more than 100,000 people a week. That sounds like a pretty captive audience to me.

"I have no idea who Mr Insider is because, despite being so forthright in his views, he very bravely decides to remain anonymous.

"But, if you are reading this, I’d like to put forward a challenge to you Mr Insider. Come and spend a day in our office, see how hard our reporters work, the dedication and hours they put into producing the paper each week, and see if it changes your view."

I mean Christ, if you're going to go out on a limb and respond, you might as well do it in a really innovative way; a car park fight perhaps?

But no, the old day in the newsroom challenge it was.

And Inside Croydon's response?

"If you don’t mind, for now we’ll pass your offer for us to give up a day of our expertise to give your staff some training and show them how to do their jobs. And we will continue to judge them, and you, on results."

That was, at least, actually quite funny.

However not unexpected, as the last time I had any contact with Mr Inside Croydon, I was emailed with strict instructions not to publish any of his comments in this blog, I presume due to a sudden burst of shyness.

Oh, the irony...

But in this case, I can't help but doff my cap to Inside Croydon, and wield a sword of disappointment in the direction of Glenn Ebrey for committing the ultimate newspaper crime of rising to the bait and losing.

Disappointing all round really.

Is anyone listening in?

It may come as something as a surprise, but I have never blogged on the so-called phone hacking 'scandal'.

Being a legally-minded yellow belly has played a part in that of course, but so has my own difficulty in settling on an opinion of this tactic, whether it has happened or not.

You see, the clear cut moral supremacist in me immediately wants to cry 'outrage', 'folly' and other such words only an indignant mother can use with any authority.

But the reporter in me yearns to cry 'what the hell, these things are news and if people don't want you to find out, they should sort their fucking lives out' at the top of my voice across the newsroom.

So where do I fall? I remain, as yet, undecided.

One thing I can tell you however, is where I don't fall. That, my friends, is in the sickeningly self-righteous camp of those seemingly taking such joy in highlighting the alleged working processes of some newsrooms.

I mean, come on, even the most liberal newshound on Planet Papers has to swallow a bit of ego here and admit - to themselves in a darkened room on a cold winter night if no-one else - that they would love to have written the possible exclusives these alleged hackings have produced.

And more to the point, if they don't, why the fuck not?

The last thing any reporter who understands the pressure in a national newsroom should be doing is taking this easy chance to, effectively, shit on their brethren.

Because like it or not folks, newspapers will ultimately stand and fall together, tabloid or broadsheet, tits-on-page-three or no-tits-on-page-three.

If we are all so confident we have never, ever, pushed a boundary in the pursuit of truth; whether we perceive it as being in the public interest or otherwise, then this nauseating witch hunt taking place at the NotW should continue unabated.

However, cast your mind back to your first day in a newsroom.

What would you have done to score a huge exclusive to impress the scary person sitting in the big office? I can guarantee the answer would have been an unequivocal 'anything'.

No, that doesn't excuse illegal tactics, if any of those being alleged have been used and those caught should face stern punishments.

But please, save me the self-righteous pontificating so much in evidence currently.

And a funny new year...

Well hello all and a happy new year and all that balls to everyone who actually reads this.

Due to a distinct lack of inspiration induced by a festive season spent bathing in copious amounts of alcohol and unsuitable food, I am falling back on the classic new year filler - a round-up of the previous year!

Yes, that's right, here are a couple of my favourite piles of shit from 2010. Enjoy!

Plus, I've saved a new one for last so don't despair!

Not strictly a journalistic error, but what the hell, it is funny... Is Facebook trying to tell me something?



Got to love this picture to accompany a story about undercover police officers. My, how they're getting hard to spot!



A rather over-enthusiastic columnist here it seems. Thanks for the Tweet, you know who you are!



And a special mention to those lovely people who follow me on Twitter, @haplesshack, just because they are special people:

@victoriaraimes
@fleetstreetblue
@nottshospice
@daviesshell
@NewsShopperJR
@ellastella
@obicolkenobi
@hizzary
@SeamusOKeeffe
@JTheBossRoss
@thegirlsilver
@PogalJoners
@Bezeb
@HullMailNews

Obviously, they may be mental, but I still love them.

Have a good one - and don't forget to keep your spots and any other rants coming to thehaplesshack@gmail.com should you wish to!

The Secret of Daily Mail's Success...

Sorry to harp on about the Daily Mail website - actually, scrap that, I'm not sorry at all - but it really is becoming such a beacon of excellence for both newspapers, news websites and newspaper executives who are stuck in the pit of trying to justify everything, to everyone, all the time, even though they have no fucking clue what they're actually talking about.

I give you Mail Online publisher Martin Clarke, and his recent address at the Society of Editors Conference.

He said: "Mail Online has succeeded because it does what newspapers have always done, it tells fascinating stories clearly with great headlines, punchy words and brilliant pictures."

Let's take this one step at a time...

"Mail Online has succeeded because...":

* "fascinating stories": Really? Where? A quick look today reveals 13, yes, 13 celebrity-based stories in the top half of the Mail homepage. There are nine 'news' stories in the main section.

* "great headlines": Again, really? Headlines today include: 'Rent boy quizzed by police over claims that husband of honeymoon murder victim paid him for sex sessions', 'Big freeze returns tonight with EIGHT inches of snow and temperatures of -10C on the way, prompting fears it will eclipse the winter of 1962-3' and 'He has an army of liberal millionaire supporters bit WikiLeaks boss is STILL trying to raise £240,000 in cash for his bail'.

Yeah, fuckin' fascinating those Martin...

* "punchy words": See above.

* "brilliant pictures": See below - I'll let you judge.



Now, to all those executives now knocking one off over Clarke's genius thinking and incredible figures on Mail Online, I give you the response.

* "Please, stop wallowing in a vat of your own clueless thinking and realise that whacking celebrity names in headlines, along with words like "rent boy" and "sex sessions" (preferably together) does not indicate some kind of genius online thinking, it indicates a blatant attempt to produce plastic figures based on wankers who know nothing about anything reading shit stories."

If that is the future, then you can stick it right up your arse and we should all quit now.

Thank you Mr Clarke for killing our industry. Still, you'll be long fucking dead with millions in the bank when the final person left trying to preserve some sort of integrity is handed a P45.

Still, at least he has some sense of how shit his own site is.

"I don't think we'll ever win any web design awards."

No shit Sherlock.

'Tis the season to be jolly...

Christmas is a tricky time for every department at a newspaper.

Sales are struggling to cut down supplies and deciding on which day to leave off their ABCs as sales are just so shit.

Editorial is stockpiling features like never before, while trying to maintain some semblance of actual news in a see of festive press releases.

And managers are, well, looking forward to the posh lunch/day off event they have planned despite giving every employee a £5 pot to piss in for their Christmas party...

Yet they shouldn't be the only ones reveling in the opportunities December presents.

Surely, for advertising departments up and down the land, Christmas is the time of joy, the time to make hay as it were, while the snow falls?

Every shop in the land should be queueing up to show off their wares in the pages of the local rag, giving away this that and the other and basically cosying up to newspapers all over the shop (I'm on fire for puns today).

However, it has to be embraced, and let's be honest, it's a bit of a God-send (can you see what I did there?) for stories in the week or so before the day itself, and for the week after. There are picture stories galore to be had, Christmas miracle births, Christmas Day births, swims, walks, etc etc.

So it was with interest that I took a little looksie round the usual band of high-flying news websites in a bid to see how each had harnessed the new season and was somewhat let down by my findings.

Various big hitters had nothing at all to do with Christmas online that I could find, including www.thisisnottingham.co.uk, www.thisisbrighton.co.uk, www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk and www.thisisbristol.co.uk to name but a few.

Others had a very small nod to the festive season, including the Lincolnshire Echo, which was flagging up a Santa's Letter scheme (prime advertising fodder I would imagine, as mentioned above) - a snip at £3.95!

The Reading Evening Post too seemed to have found a way of trying to eek out some cash, with a tie-up for Christmas shopping with an external retailer (see picture below).



Others had made a bit more of an effort, including Newsquest big hitters www.thisisbolton.co.uk and www.oxfordmail.co.uk, who put their stablemate the Argus to shame with full sections dedicated to everything snow- and Santa-based. A quick peek at the Bolton offering is below.



It would be interesting to know how much money their efforts made? Hopefully a lot.

Same with www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk, which is running a Christmas lights competition, a natural home for such competitions what with page-starved books for most papers.

Anyway, the point of having a look really was just to harness whether anyone is actually trying to do anything differently in this sea of 'difficult financial times'.

My answer, as has been exposed so many times while writing this blog and working in a newsroom, is no in pretty much all cases.

I can only presume we're all too full of piss and wind (as well as mince pies and cheap Champagne) to actually try and do anything?

I sincerely hope those attempting to innovate and fight their way out of this paper bag of a recession succeed. Those who moan a lot but have tried nothing? Well, the papers will survive, hopefully without you...

NUJ action? You must be joking...

Now, the seemingly endless saga of strikes at Newsquest newspapers up and down the country is something I've mused on before.

However, previously, I targeted the sloppy coordination of the NUJ, which has singularly failed to galvanise the clearly strong voice for protest at many centres.

And I'm going to do exactly the same again.

I realise there is strict legislation in place which governs such moves, but surely the NUJ has some idea of how to go about coordinating a nationwide strike, as that clearly seems to be something Newsquest employees are craving?

It would seem that would be the only way to truly do something about the shoddy treatment of so many journalists by a company which makes "lots of money", apparently.

This is what you're there for NUJ, not your usual sprouting of bullshit rhetoric.

Conference bullshit. As usual.

Oh, how I love conferences where top bods at regional, national, shit, good, middling newspapers get to shout their opinions from a stage.

The best thing about them is that many of them serve only to show what a complete bunch of fools those overseeing our industry are.

I realise I am turning in to a complete whinger these days, but let's be honest, the fodder is too obvious to overlook.

Case in point: Society of Editors conference in Glasgow.

Editors and execs from up and down the country have thrown expenses caution to the wind (leaving behind reporters whose claims are thrown out if they submit them a bit late) for a few nights in a plush hotel to catch up with old mates over far too much food and drink.

Oh, and they might talk about newspapers a bit too.

The subject the other day was, as it inevitably is for at least one session at these things, the interweb.

And we saw the full scale of the problem encapsulated in one opinion, voiced by the revered editor of the Press & Journal, Aberdeen, Derek Tucker.

Revered, from what I can gather, for running a paper that managed to lose 3.4% of circulation in the January ABCs.

Right, anyway, his quotes included this glorious nugget...

"We have not sold our souls on creating an all-singing, all-dancing website. We have always adopted a stricter attitude to the industry norm."

Excellent.

It was also reported that not all Press & Journal stories are uploaded to the web and that none, repeat NONE, were uploaded before they appeared in the paper.

I'm sure countless editors and MDs up and down the land were gasping at this revelation.

"Derek Tucker doesn't upload everything? And nothing before it's been in the paper? Why, we must adopt this revolutionary process immediately!"

What a fool.

I don't care how revered he is, or by how much less his circulation has fallen than anyone else, he is talking utter tosh.

How can he quantify, for example, the amount of newspaper sales he may have gained by promoting things from the internet? Or by breaking news on the internet, even if it is in a scaled-down story or feature, flagging content in the printed product?

Content is free Derek, end of.

As an internet sceptic myself, I used to follow your way of thinking, but I soon came round when I witnessed the positive effects the internet can have on stories later published, be it comments from online, submitted pictures, whatever, it made the papers better.

You may have so far escaped this new-fangled interweb rubbish and flaunted a meagre 3.4% loss in front of some hapless MD, but your time is over.

Needless to say, he is stepping down in the new year after 18 years in the chair.

Let's just hope that ill-informed comments such as these do not have a lasting effect on the industry he clearly loves.

Because if his policy is continued, newspapers - and their websites - will be dead in 30 years. Completely.

And while that may be fine for those retiring in January, what about the rest of us?

Twitter update to follow - and mentions for my eight followers as promised!

Follow me now for a mention: @haplesshack

I'm also going to have a look at the Daily Mail's website today in light of a very interesting article...

Sod local, minor celebrities are the way forward...

Farcical, often-offensive comedy.

Yes, I am talking about regional newspaper bosses and their recent running of the industry we all care so much about.

Yet decisions made by those who have some actual power took perhaps the most surreal turn of all this week, with the announcement of 'comic' Jim Davidson taking on a column in Torquay's Herald Express.

While the jokes make themselves, obviously, a decision such as this really does raise serious questions about what the hell we are all doing here.

In an industry where we are constantly cutting back on local columnists, loved by many readers, to - as we are told - satisfy the desire for "higher story counts"*, what does it say to our faithful when we will happily give over God knows how much space to what many regard as an offensive comedian with no real link to the area**?

The mind boggles.

I'm sure the Herald Express would argue the publicity they have gained will bump up circulation a bit in the first few weeks, but really, is it worth isolating such a large faction of readers for a quick gain?

Again, the questions are so appropriate for decisions taken within the industry as a whole it's untrue.

The way this was announced is also not great, from the perspective of someone reading these papers.

The piece on the Herald Express website informs us that Davidson will be "jotting down his words of wisdom" in the column.

One can only marvel at what such words of wisdom may be, from a man who penned such beauties as this, a quote attributed to Davidson when asked of the reasons behind his move to Dubai when a Labour Government was elected:

"I may as well go to Dubai and be an ethnic minority there than wait five years till I become one here," he said.

Hmmm...

Well, I suppose one age-old newspaper adage that will remain true is that the readership will be the best judge of what works in the paper.

And what doesn't.

* regardless of quality.
** A "regular visitor and former seasonal resident", according to the Herald Express piece, which makes me a qualified columnist for Majorca quite frankly.

When splashes go bad...

We've all been there.

You're running the newsdesk, an hour before deadline, and the splash falls through.

You've sold it to the editor, who has been touting it around his editor chums (I presume they call each other 'chums'? I think they should), telling them the next day's paper will sweep the board at next year's awards dos.

Then, almost in slow motion, you notice the reporter writing it is speaking to you.

The words come out slowly, deeply... And it's gone.

You compose yourself, try not to shout at them too loudly for waiting a week before actually doing any work on the story, then pop and see the editor.

This goes well, as you assure him you have an equally brilliant story as a back up, which of course, you don't.

A quick check with the court reporters proves fruitless, your 'banker' reporter has nothing, even the geeky bloke in the corner who only does FoI stories draws a blank.

Okay, compose yourself, there's a planning agenda on the desk. Yes, a planning agenda! Good old-fashioned reporting.

Yes, there has to be something in the planning agenda for God's sake...

And there is. Sort of.



Oh dear.

Imagine the editor's face when you go to him with this? You've oversold it, you know that, but you can make it work, you can...

But sometimes, you just can't.

The above story is a woeful tale. Planning application for a nursery. That's it. No hidden agenda. It's not a nursery for criminally-insane toddlers or anything like that.

No, it's just a nursery.

Quite how it has turned in to a honey trap for paedophiles is never actually explained, until mum-of-two Natalie Rooney steps in to the fray...

“We think there will be traffic problems because of all the parents dropping off and picking up their children.

“We think there will be noise problems because the children will be playing outdoors. We are also worried that paedophiles will be attracted to the area to be close to the nursery.”

Okay... She is worried that paedophiles will move in to the area to be close to the nursery.

Incredible.

Not only should the reporter have dismissed this immediately, actually, reporter Michael Purton should have 'mmm'-ed and 'aahhh'-ed in an agreeable tone before putting down the phone and pissing himself, but when the desk got this copy, they should have sorted it.

And the subs, surely the subs would not let such a thing through?

Wrong again.

All round, this is really not a ringing endorsement of the quality of reporting at News Shopper.

It;s lazy, it's desperate, and while I don't doubt it's probably the most-read edition for many years, it is NOT the way editors should be tempting in readers.

Sensationalism of the worst kind, done badly (what is going on with that headline?), and a copy of this should be held up at every single meeting to discuss why newspapers are a. hated and b. why sales are falling through the floor.

Do follow me on Twitter - I do get on there occasionally, so I will reply to any direct tweets or whatever it is you do on there! @haplesshack

Still on a massive seven followers - who I am eternally grateful too and will give a shout out to in the next blog! Join them and you'll get one too!

Strike me down, but they need organising...

I find the recent upsurge of strikes across Newsquest centres very sad.

Not simply because of the moves which have made them inevitable - ever-falling staffing, sub hubs, pension changes, senior executives behaving like banking fat cats - but also because of the seemingly random way in which they are organised.

Speaking to colleagues on Newsquest papers, it seems there is no coherent thinking by that age-old bastion of a union, the NUJ.

I would expect the NUJ, as the NUS did yesterday in London, to organise something on a slightly larger scale than a handful of people outside a newspaper office on an industrial estate.

This is what happens to a union when it simply doesn't do enough.

After many years of membership, I eventually stopped my direct debit, as the cost of the union seemed to constantly increase in direct proportion to the loss of representation I actually felt.

I'm not alone.

So, say what you like about the NUS action on Wednesday, the NUJ can only dream of such a turnout.

And that, I'm afraid, is largely their own fault.

Twits, the lot of'em.

Yes, I have to admit it. I have been looking in to Twitter as a result of constant badgering from those of you good enough to read this little blog in passing every now and again.

Just some of the comments I have had:

"It's great, you can just post things straight away and not have to have an entire blog prepared."

"You should tweet*, you'll get loads more followers."

And...

"It's 140 characters so you won't be able to winge on talking shite to stretch out your blogs."

Okay, the last one was made up, but the others are real.

So, as I say, I've been looking in to it. And it has made me laugh a few times, so I am, today, going to announce the official Hapless Hack Twitter account. All I need to do is set it up.

Anyway, in perusing the latest internet phenom (apparently that's an acceptable word nowadays, as is nowadays) I have come across some very amusing things.

Yet I have also come to one very obvious conclusion. Basically, it's a tabloid hack's dream isn't it?

So-called 'celebrities' posting their thoughts, off-the-cuff, pr-free, reaching out to their 'fans' from the information super highway.

Or is it basically yet another tool for the lazy bastards that need something to write about?

Take the News of The World on Sunday. Now, I started following Lord Alan Sugar (let's be honest, it doesn't sound anywhere near as good as "Sir Alan") as apparently it is actually him, as he seems at pains to point out every five minutes.

So I watched his little joust with Conservative housing advisor extraordinaire Kirstie Allsopp as it happened, and chuckled to myself as I imagined the work experience kid at NoTW house tripping over as he ran to the newsdesk to explain the "row", "fight", whatever going on before his very eyes.

And sure enough, there it was on page 12 on Sunday, complete with "row", "bust-up" and amusing headline pun ('Apprentwit').

Oh, the joy of the technological age.

It's just an excuse for even more overblown crap really isn't it?

I'm going to start a new competition, email me (thehaplesshack@gmail.com) with your Twitter stories and I'll give away 50% of the highest tabloid fee I get to one lucky winner...

Anyway, you can now follow me on Twitter, I'm @haplesshack apparently, so climb on and let's join the revolution! See you there.

Pooping on your own doorstep...

Well hello my little Droogies, long time no speak, which of course is entirely my fault so I apologise.

To be honest, not a lot has made my ears prick up recently (although I did receive a very funny email about a certain newspaper which I have chosen not to highlight - thanks though, you know who you are).

However, something always comes along, and an email detailing some fine, fine work by the Croydon Advertiser came up trumps.

An interesting splash last week, exposing a brothel in the borough (unfortunately, I can't provide a link as they haven't - as far as I can see - uploaded the story to their website. Can you believe that?).

Basically, a brothel has been operating in West Croydon under the guise of a massage parlour and one intrepid reporter exposed it as a fully-fledged knocking shop.

Shock horror, obviously, leading to pure admiration at the Sherlock Holmes-like detective work involved in deducing something unsavoury may be going on...

However, here is the catch. Turn to the classifieds and you find the usual assortment of ads for massage parlours and the like and yes, you guessed it, there is an ad for the very parlour exclusively revealed to be a knocking shop just 50-odd pages earlier.

How embarrassing.

Why, for God's sake, didn't someone think to check this?

We all appreciate ad revenues are falling constantly and we are struggling to prop up our rich owners, so why bother with such a story (particularly one as unoriginal as this) when you are adding to the problem yourself by giving them an outlet to advertise their 'services'?

I ask you, a newspaper that runs a story exposing a brothel which is advertising with them should be exposed as a very, very poor publication, which I am more than happy to do here.

You can't take their money then call them scum. Get a moral grip people. We all know this goes on, yet turning a blind eye is one thing, being a damn hypocrite is another entirely.

Someone needs to be hauled over some very, very hot coals for that corker. Holier than thou my arse.

And we can't even read the bloody 'Exclusive' story online anyway. If it wasn't so pathetic it would be hilarious.

Press Release of the Week That WILL Feature in The Daily Mail & Daily Express

I know 'Press Release of the Week That WILL Feature in The Daily Mail & Daily Express' is not a feature of this blog, but I had to create one in honour of this release.

It's pure genius...

Here is the unedited copy (so the PR firm should send me at least a tenner):

Manchester United and the Cardiff Devils Ice Hockey Team face a boycott by Muslim fans because the devil emblems included in their club insignia could be outlawed in Islam.

Already religious leaders in Malaysia have forbidden Muslims to wear Manchester United shirts because the red devil emblem is forbidden in Islam.

The Johor Religious Council adviser and the Mufti of Perak have told fans that images of crosses, liquor brands and devils on football shirts are insulting to Allah.

This could spread to Britain which is home to 2.5 million Muslims.

Secret Millionaire star Paul Ragan and new owner of the Cardiff Devils denies there is any problem.

“We have a predominant ‘devil’ in our logo but the last thing in anyone’s mind was to cause any religious offence. No one has ever complained about our club name or our badge,” he said.

Cardiff has by far the largest Muslim population (4%) in Wales. In the Principality overall Muslims account for less than 1 per cent of the population (22,000 people).

Manchester United have devoted considerable effort in building a fan base for their merchandise in Malaysia. They toured there last summer and have a five-year sponsorship deal with communications group Telekom Malaysia.

“There is no excuse for wearing such garments because it means, as a Muslim, you are idolising the symbol of another religion,“ said Datuk Nooh Gadot, the Mufti of Johor.

The badges on Barcelona, Brazil, Portugal and Northern Ireland strips all feature crosses.

Who wants odds on it being in at least one national and the topic of conversation on EVERY talk-based radio phone-in in the next 24 hours?

bets to the usual address... Cash in advance you understand.

New BBC News site vs Telegraph Online

Well well, here it is at last.

After countless public information blogs and even some pre-launch screenshots, the new BBC News website confronted users this morning as they browsed for their morning fill of news alongside their Weetabix.

And what do we think? Well, I was surrounded by an array of reactions, from "cack" to many, much warmer-sounding "ooooh"s and even one "why have they done this to me?"...

For me, I don't mind it at all. It seems to be pretty reactionary (and what, in the world of news website design isn't?), which is more of a good thing when it comes to BBC sites in the UK, as they don't have to factor in advertising - the number 1 complaint of any web user when asked.

So it's clean and reasonably appealing, which in fairness, the BBC site has always been.

The first thing that gleans any kind of derision from this viewer is the sheer size of the main headline, in this case 'UK employment declines to 2.47m'*.

And it feels, even though comparing new to old is not the case, like there are fewer stories on the front.

This is because of the top story - two sub-stories - list of others approach being centre-stage.

Previously, the list of other stories was segregated, to the right-hand side of the page.

Now, it is right there in front of me, and a lack of images makes me feel like it is an after-thought. But that is just me. If a list of stories is to be a focal point, give it something to appeal to the reader.

I also don't like 'Also in the news' being so prominent (did you see what I did there, did you?). Again, this, to me, means a section full of stupid stories that no one knew what to do with, and I perceive them to not really belong in the news, but instead in some God-awful 'Funny news' or 'Weird news' section.

I wish the BBC would lose a touch of superiority complex and call it what it is; the 'Stuff that isn't really news but you might laugh at and send to your mates boosting our numbers and justifying why we put this crap up', but I understand that may contain a few too many characters.

Another thing I find slightly patronising, and a classic reaction to reports of clicks and reader response, is the sheer size of the 'Most Popular' panel. Does it really need to be so large?

I realise click reports will show this to be THE panel on the homepage - although again, the Beeb retains an intellectual standpoint by putting the doubtless under-used 'Features & Analysis' panel above it - but honestly, if we are struggling to see it, we'll have our eyes tested.

The mid-page barrier, a customizable insert for weather and news from various regional and local BBC sites, is actually quite nice, also retaining some of the 'elsewhere' links from the old site.
Below here though, is where it starts to lose the plot for me.

The homepage descends into some sort of half-impression of the Daily Mail site - see here for what I mean - with overblown story summaries (yet none on the main headlines? A compromise would have been nice) in a bid to gain Google hits, and just simple over-population of this area.

It smacks of the developer saying "well, this is where you've lost most visitors, as our research shows most readers will scroll for 1.7534 turns of the little wheel thing on their mouse, so we thought we might as well cram as many keywords as possible into this section".

For me, it looks silly and too slap-dash.

And it also looks like the Telegraph, as the entire site does, far too much.

And the Telegraph constantly freezes my browser, so let's hope this isn't the case with the new BBC News site...

Overall though, there isn't a drastic change here, just a few minor alterations in a bid to catch up to other news sites in terms of volume of content and keywords.

BBC News has long been a reliable and technically-sound site - let's hope it stays that way.

* For the record, a font this big, with the SEO headline is just annoying to me. Get over the SEO thing people, or wait three months, then someone will come up a tag that hides the bit Google searches from us poor readers who have to look at it.

When searchable headlines go mad...

The plight of the sub editor is an oft-heard tale; there aren't enough of them, template pages are killing the art, etc etc.

And while sharing their pain to an extent, it's something that has never really hit home, not being a sub.

But gradually, over the years of growth of news on the interweb, I have come to relate to their issues.

Google. Google. Google. That is all we seem to here now from web gurus across the news globe. Your stories must be 'Googleised', or 'Googleified', or whatever the term is that they shout in my ear and which just doesn't seem to register, having not read 'What iPCmacbookpad?' this month.

Yet this morning, two things on the Daily Mail website caught my eye and summised my growing affection for those bods who sit and correct our stories day in, day out, for little recognition (let's be honest, the amount of changes they make to some copy, they deserve a byline).

Firstly, the Daily Mail site was among the first to cotton on to the benefits of being found by Google, i.e. appearing first in any search gives you the overwhelming majority of clicks from searchers.

So it adapted the way it wrote headlines for stories appearing online, which is fair enough.

However, with other news outlets catching up fast, the Mail has continued to grow its efforts, and quite frankly, the site is becoming one gigantic Google hub.

Repeated links are EVERYWHERE - see a grab below, which shows only a small section of the front page.



I realise it's not very clear, but basically, the Daily Mail homepage seems to have become a page containing hundreds of stories, with hundreds of links to those stories, everywhere!

Apparently, this will score massively with Google, but at what cost?

I do wonder whether anyone reading this site is with me when I say that I get quite frustrated with the same stories appearing everywhere when I'm looking for something else to read?

I've read the top story, so why link to it another four times on the homepage, in prominent positions? It baffles me.

But that is not the only 'Googleisation' tool that concerns me. The tailored headlines are now so ridiculous they take up half the page!



That headline, to me, is just too damn long.

Yes, I can see that includes loads of things people might be searching for; I can understand (despite the protestations of our web chap that it is dreadfully complicated) that people probably do search for 'Kylie concerts' and 'cocktails' a lot - and probably together a surprising amount too.

But was it really worth it for a four-deck headline that just looks a bit silly? I'm probably living in the dark ages (probably?) but for me, it wasn't.

I'm in no way averse to the joys of having a really popular website, but I do still hold a strong amount of pride in the presentation of a story, regardless of whether it is on a piece of paper or a monitor.

So I do share the pain of a sub when I see headlines like this. Where has the skill gone?

Yet as if the web people at the Mail were aware of my growing sadness, they provided me with something to laugh at...

Lovely. Thank you.

Financial Dis-union

In recent weeks, a story has done the rounds in the national and regional press regarding the salaries of the top men at various trade unions.

Basically, the story informs us that despite fighting for the working man, day-in, day-out, 38 union bosses take home salaries in excess of £100,000 per year.

And I have to agree with the TaxPayers' Alliance that thisis a bit of a fuckin scandal. While I appreciate the money doesn't come from taxpayers, it does seem a touch hypocritical no that these chaps are happy to order their members out on strike, costing them desperately-needed cash, while their own salaries are of course, not affected in the slightest?

On the day this story broke, I also listened in to a radio interview with one of these union bosses, who was most indignant about the fact he was being challenged on his salary.

Well fuck me.

As the story says, the average salary of a civil servant is £22,850. Their union chief, Mark Serwotka, earns £111,112.

Disgraceful.

Even taking into account his position and responsibilities, the difference there is outrageous.

And, given what the average salary is for a journalist, is it any fuckin surprise that these guys do not get a lot of sympathy from the press?

Just spare a thought, union chiefs, when you are issuing your rallying calls for those in the public sector to walk out and demand more cash, that the poor fucker in the suit running around writing down the crap coming out of your mouth is probably earning a lot less than the average civil servant, has run out from an office that has become 50% emptier in recent years and has to combine three jobs, which is why he is fishing around for a camera while talking to you.

And our salaries AREN'T paid by the taxpayer either.

Cheeky feckers.