bad news - Gawker

posts about #badnews more →
More AP Layoffs TK (Updated)
Here Come the Forbes Layoffs
How Scared Should Businessweek's Staff Be?
Conde Nast: 25% Cuts, Layoffs Loom. Except at The New Yorker!
The New Look: Ivy League Jerk Chic
Just Not Good
Proof That Profiling Journalists Is Worthless
Conde Nast's September: Ouch
Master Thief Steals Goldman's Secret Process
Threatening Bloggers Via Text Message: Not Savvy PR

Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.

Dsmvwl Admin Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×

raincoaster
10/28/09

In reply to More AP Layoffs TK (Updated)
When he says "the targeted reduction is in payroll and not headcount" what he means is "they'll still be filing copy, but we'll call them bloggers and pay them in 'exposure' instead of money." #ap
Reply

raincoaster was starred raincoaster was unstarred

TheBusinessGuy
10/26/09

In reply to Here Come the Forbes Layoffs
"Maintain...deepening...making shifts..." In other words, those who remain will be working longer, harder, and maybe for less pay. And while we cut expenses, we will be telling our advertisers to spend more. To do that, we must ask each member of our sales team to become a Bizarro as of Wednesday. Me share your happiness.
Reply

Edited by TheBusinessGuy at 10/26/09 5:31 PM TheBusinessGuy was starred TheBusinessGuy was unstarred

Chore Boy
10/26/09

In reply to Here Come the Forbes Layoffs
No doubt Steve's Aspergers will prevent him from making eye contact with the recently chopped as they clean out their cubicles, but they can rest easy knowing that Steve's flat tax will put them on easy street soon. #forbes
Reply

Mediahohoho promoted this comment Chore Boy was starred Chore Boy was unstarred

Rozelle’s Bagman
10/09/09

In reply to How Scared Should Businessweek's Staff Be?
I read Aviation Week for the fashion advice.
Reply

Rozelle’s Bagman was starred

Trai_Dep
09/23/09

In reply to Conde Nast: 25% Cuts, Layoffs Loom. Except at The New Yorker!
Highlights Magazine just won't be the same when they roll out the remade, Goofus & ...Goofus.
Reply

Trai_Dep was starred Trai_Dep was unstarred

Dominant Glee Club
09/23/09

In reply to Conde Nast: 25% Cuts, Layoffs Loom. Except at The New Yorker!
Didn't I say the New Yorker was immune?
Reply

Dominant Glee Club was starred

Oryx Hearts Crake
09/23/09

In reply to Conde Nast: 25% Cuts, Layoffs Loom. Except at The New Yorker!
One word of advice to long-term Conde Naste employees who get fired: threaten to sue (for age discrimination, etc.) if they don't double whatever they initially offer you as severance pay. Most big companies will immediately jack up their severance pay in response to this kind of a threat (but will make you sign a waiver of liability)
Reply

Phyllis Nefler promoted this comment Oryx Hearts Crake was starred

FormerEnglishMajor
09/23/09

@Oryx Hearts Crake: Hey - and best of luck getting that reference you'll need for your next job! You must be a career counselor!
Reply

FormerEnglishMajor was starred

Oryx Hearts Crake
09/23/09

@FormerEnglishMajor:

But at a large business like Conde Naste the people who will be providing recommendations are a completely different group of people who dole out the severance pay....and the people who recommend you probably hate the higher ups as much as you do.

I know several people who doubled their severance pay by threatening to hire a lawyer. It really works.
Reply

Oryx Hearts Crake was starred

mediaqueen
09/23/09

@Oryx Hearts Crake: I have been through more than one down sizing. Suing is not recommended when one is let go as part of a group. And most big companies will ignore this type of threat because they have in-house corporate counsel to fight any attempt at a lawsuit. Most employees, however, do not have a lawyer already in their employ.
Reply

Cynical Media Bitch promoted this comment mediaqueen was starred mediaqueen was unstarred

Seeräuber Jenny
09/23/09

@Oryx Hearts Crake:

Could be dicey; I wouldn't assume a complete separation of Church and State. But I do know someone who was let go at a large media company for whom that apparently worked.
Reply

Seeräuber Jenny was starred Seeräuber Jenny was unstarred

Seeräuber Jenny
09/23/09

@Seeräuber Jenny:

Incidentally, being age-discrimination-suit eligible is why many over 40 people are terrified they're not going to get hired again.

Law, can't live with it, can't always enforce it.
Reply

Seeräuber Jenny was starred Seeräuber Jenny was unstarred

Cynical Media Bitch
09/23/09

@mediaqueen: Employer before last gave me a choice: take what they offered, or sue them and see whatever was awarded eaten up by attorney's fees.
Reply

TheBusinessGuy
09/23/09

@Oryx Hearts Crake: Trust me, Conde can ride out just about any suit you might throw at them unless you are talking about forming a class action suit, and layoffs there are so broad-based that an age discrimination suit just won't work. Also, if you do sue and you need a reference, your boss is going to be very careful about saying anything good about you if he or she knows there is a lawsuit going on. Remember, too, that it seems like Conde is letting departmental managers determine how cuts are made, so if your boss likes you well enough (but not enough to keep you) you could wind up with more severance, outplacement, and paid up COBRA. You could at least try asking for that stuff.
Reply

Edited by TheBusinessGuy at 09/23/09 5:16 PM TheBusinessGuy was starred TheBusinessGuy was unstarred

ZahirPublius
09/23/09

In reply to Conde Nast: 25% Cuts, Layoffs Loom. Except at The New Yorker!
Another way to read this is that Conde Nast is putting 25% cuts on the worst of its magazines (Details, Glamour, Courmet and Teen Vogue). Traveler has enough stories in its lineup to run for a year without hiring a single freelancer. Saving the New Yorker shows that they are interested in keeping magazines with good content alive (how sensible!). So the news for the these five may be different for WIRED, GQ, and Vanity Fair who still run well researched pieces and for Vogue which is, well, Vogue.
Reply

Phyllis Nefler promoted this comment ZahirPublius was starred ZahirPublius was unstarred

Cheap Shot
09/23/09

In reply to Conde Nast: 25% Cuts, Layoffs Loom. Except at The New Yorker!
"except the New Yorker, which is escaping unscathed" What a surprise there.
Reply

Edited by Cheap Shot at 09/23/09 10:25 AM Cheap Shot was starred Cheap Shot was unstarred

Boswell
09/23/09

In reply to Conde Nast: 25% Cuts, Layoffs Loom. Except at The New Yorker!
They paid for political cover, not original ideas. Assuming that CN management has a collective brain, they knew they had to cut back -- and probably had some strong opinions about where and how to do that. Bringing in McK just gives them a political out, which (although lame in the extreme) is what spineless executives deploy in lean times. What an utter clusterfuck this is.
Reply

Phyllis Nefler promoted this comment Boswell was starred Boswell was unstarred

The Recession Is Over
09/23/09

In reply to Conde Nast: 25% Cuts, Layoffs Loom. Except at The New Yorker!
And so how much did Conde pay to be told to cut 25 percent for most of your titles, but we'll let you figure out how to to that. I thought McKinsey's jobs was to tell companies how and where to cut money.
Reply

Swordfish promoted this comment Edited by The Recession Is Over at 09/23/09 9:58 AM

Swordfish
09/23/09

@The Recession Is Over: Exactly my thoughts.
Reply

Swordfish was starred Swordfish was unstarred

Unsolicited Advice
09/23/09

@Swordfish:

Editors are being given control, which is probably a good thing in the magazine business. Producing branded content isn't like an assembly line. You can't point at 6 rivets and say "cut that to 5 rivets." Editors are in the best position to determine how to right-size their budgets based on the nature of the title - they're also in the best position to get sacked if they screw it up.
Reply

Unsolicited Advice was starred

Better to Eat You With
09/23/09

@Unsolicited Advice: You're right, of course. But this: "point at 6 rivets and say 'cut that to 5 rivets'" is exactly what consultants purport to do. Any low-level accounting clerk could have told the magazines to cut their budgets by 25%. The "how" is the whole reason you pay the soulless bastards to come in in the first place. I think the point here is that they needn't have hired expensive consultants to spend a couple of months telling them this obvious thing. Any balance sheet would make this obvious.
Reply

FormerEnglishMajor promoted this comment

FormerEnglishMajor
09/23/09

@Better to Eat You With: this is standard. You can't overrule the supposed "heads" of the magazines, or morale would collapse and die ("those McKinsey guys have been here 90 days and they think they know who is really doing the work!").

So the editors are treated like adults and left to chop 25%, and the message they receive is: you cut it, or we'll cut it for you.
Reply

FormerEnglishMajor was starred

Unsolicited Advice
09/23/09

@FormerEnglishMajor:

Bingo. And the subtext there: they think some of the editors are going to fail, which will necessitate their removal.
Reply

Unsolicited Advice was starred

FormerEnglishMajor
09/23/09

@Unsolicited Advice: And they won't have to worry about lawsuits, because the firings will be "for cause" - "we told them their job was to cut 25%; they did not, so given the environment we had to find someone able to run the book". Look, were anyone running Conde, that's what they'd do.
Reply

FormerEnglishMajor was starred

Unsolicited Advice
09/23/09

@FormerEnglishMajor:

Agree 100%. Endgame here? Every editor brings their budget proposals. Unpopular titles or redundant titles "don't meet standard" and go out the door. A few favorite sons and daughters - particularly those who suffered from the death of aspirational luxury (GQ, Vogue, et al) - wind up with dollars that were previously being poured into losers. Because that's the other thing consultants do; they teach you how to get where you want to go.
Reply

Unsolicited Advice was starred

lionel-mandrake
09/23/09

In reply to Conde Nast: 25% Cuts, Layoffs Loom. Except at The New Yorker!
My guess, little or no commissioned photography (meaning it probably costs less to produce than glossier titles), very healthy circ numbers (sub & newsstand), and oh yeah, prestige, spared the New Yorker.
Reply

Motoko Kusanagi approved this comment lionel-mandrake was starred lionel-mandrake was unstarred

Astigmatism
09/23/09

They may not have David LaChapelle on retainer, but they're one of the few titles that will still engage in months-long reporting in far-flung areas. I imagine that it can't be cheap to produce that product on a weekly basis, but I agree that the halo effect of the brand is probably worth it to the Nasties.
Reply

Edited by Astigmatism at 09/23/09 10:14 AM Astigmatism was starred Astigmatism was unstarred

sarrible
09/23/09

@Astigmatism: Even with that kind of reporting, they have to be spending much, much less than Vogue, Glamour, and W. Sure, they're sending reporters to the middle of Russia, but they're not sending four photographers, seventeen assistants, an entire catering crew and McQueen's fall line with them.
Reply

sarrible was starred sarrible was unstarred

lionel-mandrake
09/23/09

@sarrible: Exactly.
Reply

Phyllis Nefler approved this comment lionel-mandrake was starred lionel-mandrake was unstarred

Shelwood
09/12/09

In reply to The New Look: Ivy League Jerk Chic
This makes perfect sense. Since the Billyburg types have been aping '70s style, it was inevitable that one would dig out The Preppy Handbook from 1980. Call it what you will, it's still a rerun.
Reply

Shelwood was starred Shelwood was unstarred

valet_of_the_dolls
09/09/09

In reply to The New Look: Ivy League Jerk Chic
This makes an interesting companion to the Anna Wintour piece of earlier today. Someone who seems to have shed her previous self (or selves) as definitively as possible, and someone who so lovingly curates his past that it seems he'd go back there permanently, if he could.
Reply

valet_of_the_dolls was starred

nicepony
09/09/09

In reply to The New Look: Ivy League Jerk Chic
I hate when they try to make a trend out of nothing.
Reply

Edited by nicepony at 09/09/09 7:35 PM nicepony was starred nicepony was unstarred

Earlier threads | All threads | Show hidden threads | Show featured threads only | Start a new discussion