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.

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.

Hyperwhatallnow?

Have you ever heard the term 'hyperlocal'?

If you work in a newsroom and you ever pay any attention to anyone who wears a suit that cost more than your monthly salary, then you probably have.

It's the future, we're told, and involves providing news to communities that they will find relevant and interesting.

Well I never, whatever was it we were doing before?

Anyway, 'hyperlocal' is certainly the buzz term of the minute, so we are all being gently prodded, with a big stick made of redundancy, towards coming up with ways to achieve the ultimate in 'hyperlocal' coverage.

Just as research really, I looked up the term 'hyper' and derivations thereof in a bid to deduce exactly what it is these people may be after.

Needless to say, the results were disappointing:

hype n intensive or exaggerated publicity or sales promotion.

hyper adj Informal overactive or overexcited.

hyper- prefix over, above, excessively, e.g. hyperactive.

Still, first one to come up with exactly what it means wins a media industry...

Even more news oddities...

You see? I told you I'd find more, and you are a darling bunch for responding to my plea for help so quickly!

So onwards and well, downwards I suppose...

First up, the ever-optimistic http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/, which we are told has launched a revolutionary news shopping site.

I hear your gasps, and indeed, I gasped too, as I was looking forward to seeing what revolutionary enhancement they had come up with.

Alas, disappointment...

Yep, just an adopted page from Amazon. Still, I'm sure the good people who are 'getting' Surrey are glad they can now 'get' their DVDs alongside their local news...

Elsewhere, job ads are not, or are, what they used to be.

Regional newspaper site Hold The Front Page, often the first port of call for the many, many glitzy and glamorous opportunities on offer in the world of journalism carried an ad that intrigued me for a 'Club Reporter'.

A typo, me thought, but on closer inspection, that was indeed exactly what they were after!

And quite frankly, who wouldn't want a job working alongside the comedy genius who came up with "Send us your pitch"? Lovely stuff.

I couldn't let this bumper day of fun go by without mentioning our dear friends over at http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/ now could I (and there's more on them soon)?

Yep, the ever-enjoyable (or ever-cringe-worthy) TiG (ahhh) Blog continues to amaze with its biting wit and enlightenment of the workings of the site (when was the last time anything about the site and not the writer's tedious life was ever mentioned?).

Anyway, this particular piece of scripture really caught my eye.

Yes, I must admit that my life and understanding of thisisgloucestershire.co.uk is much richer now that I know this chap doesn't like Britain's Got Talent, or, more precisely, the acts he mentions (I personally wouldn't know any of them if I fell over them).

However, being a journalist, I do read newspapers and couldn't fail to spot the misspelling in the blog of the act Spelbound (correct spelling of the act), of course, spelt incorrectly as "spellbound".

Nothing big in that, you may think, and of course, we all make mistakes.

But what provoked me into commenting is that a few steps down is this gem:

In it, the writer (I presume it's always the same person, otherwise this irony is completely lost?), while discussing the literary growth of his offspring (why do we care again?) professes himself to be "a graduate of English Literature" and "a wordsmith".

A wordsmith would surely check the spelling of a TV talent show act before publishing?

Why of why don't people realise that if they are commenting on something, particularly if they're slating it, that they perhaps need to check if they're spelling names correctly?

Anyhow, I'll attempt another blog today if possible, I know I have neglected you for a while...

The light is brighter from the outside...

It's funny how people suddenly become so critical once they leave a particular branch of the industry isn't it?

Case in point - Marc Reeves, former editor of the Birmingham Post.

In his blog, he speaks about how newspapers (including those under his leadership) have singularly failed to make the most of the internet.

While his thoughts may be exactly right, I do have one question to ask:

WHY DIDN'T YOU DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT THEN?

It's all well and good moaning after the fact but let's be honest, an editor has at least some sway in his own newsroom, even when it comes to the digital offering?

Anyway, let's have a look at what he actually said, at least that way we can nod along and laugh...

"I spent the last 15 years of my newspaper career regularly attending industry conferences in which the threats and opportunities of the internet were endlessly discussed and analysed.

"Pretty much everything that has come to pass was predicted, but what did the big newspaper groups do? Very little that was right, it turns out."

Again, why didn't you, as the person attending these conferences (at no extra cost to your employer I presume) suggest doing anything differently? Or did you and were ignored?

Anyhoo, it continues...

"Saddled by a shareholder base that had grown used to the cash cow returns of a monopoly, the regional newspaper industry in particular was structurally incapable of adopting the entrepreneurial approach that is the only option available when almost every aspect of your business model is rendered obsolete."

Preach on, brother.

Advertising models, editorial models, everything should have changed. While it can be argued that certain elements of news content was, is, and always will be pretty much standard, something, anything, should have changed at some point.

Instead, we have the desperation of blogs, desperation and copycat websites called thisiswhateversomeoneelsehasalreadydonebetterthanus...

Marc makes some very good points very well, yet singularly fails to address what he would have done differently (it's worth noting he is now working for the thebusinessdesk, yawn).

Yet newspaper groups should listen to someone finally free from the shackles of managing directors who have no clue, advertising directors who continue to see online adverts as a 'bolt-on' for in-paper displays and the likes.

It is not easy to theorise that there are many, many other editors, still in office, who realise that they are effectively stewards of a sinking ship.

However, rather than sitting in another meeting talking about it and doing actually nothing, why doesn't some maverick actually try something different?

Why won't someone look to the future? And I mean actually look, not just babble on talking complete shit about how newspapers will be dead soon and we are all going to die, actually see how this could work?

No, they won't, because they have bonuses, pensions and shitty company cars to consider, as do many of us (not me, but you know, trying not to simply batter middle management here, oh fuck it, go on then...).

It's a shame that while these newspaper groups were enjoying the fruits of a booming market, they never actually utilised much of the talent that existed (and perhaps still does?) in the lower ranks.

No, they promoted a bunch of pricks instead, didn't they?

Sorry this has been a bit worthy-wank, I will be funny as soon as I can. Well, I'll try, you know what I mean...