Chatter: On advertising, and a missing tin cup

An occasional peek at what you’ve been chattering about over the past 24 hours. Latest: Your reactions to my income experiment on Gannett Blog, through advertising and a voluntary $5 subscription charge.

Several readers suggested I seek more lucrative traffic by broadening the blog to include other media companies. “Try adding a separate daily forum for non-Gannett newspaper news,” said Anonymous@7 p.m.McClatchy seems a good candidate for a permanent addition. They’ve missed two interest payments, but their creditors still allow McClatchy to pay stock dividends.”

But @11:08 p.m. said I’m now getting my comeuppance: “Your new digital ad plan does not cover expenses? Let’s beg for $5 every few months? Where’s the tin cup? . . . Wonder why USA Today had difficulty selling enough ads to cover your $140K salary and bennies for producing weak content that few people wanted.”

Finally, it’s worth noting that people read this blog 24/7. But, still, on Saturday? “Can’t help it,” said @12:23 p.m. “It’s like when you sneak a quick glance at that car crash as you drive by.”

Join the debate — or start a new one, in Real Time Comments.

8 Responses to “Chatter: On advertising, and a missing tin cup”

  1. Anonymous Says:

    Jim quoted “McClatchy seems a good candidate for a permanent addition. They’ve missed two interest payments, but their creditors still allow McClatchy to pay stock dividends.”

    Turns out it’s the Star-Tribune that missed the two interest payments. The Strib is a former McClatchy paper. My mistake.

    McClatchy renegotiated its debt Sept 26 to avoid default, according to Reuters.
    Fitz and Jen report “Dividend payouts of up to $16 million will be permitted in the fiscal quarters ending in March and June of 2009. But after that, dividends will not be allowed unless McClatchy keeps its debt-to-cash flow ratio below 5 times.”

  2. Anonymous Says:

    Uh, journalists work on weekends. So quickly we forget…

  3. Anonymous Says:

    I don't really need inside info on other media companies on this blog. Gannett is a big company and already much of what is reported on here doesn't really mean much to the average Joe writing obits in Salisbury or Cherry Hill.

    I work at USA Today and do get a fair amount of info and entertainment from this blog. However, I won't pay for it because what makes this blog different than the Gannetteer or some other company or E&P blog is that it has a "outside the system" quality to it. Money corrupts. It will change the nature of this blog in subtle ways, and eventually more obvious ways. At that point, it becomes useless…just like the Gannetteer.

  4. Anonymous Says:

    Interesting that this keeps coming up (Jim trying to make a buck), when Gannett and others struggle to find out a way to actually make coin on an internet-based communication tool.

    Easy to throw stones.

    And, WTF, you made over $110K?! Let me be perfectly clear here: NOBODY is worth $100K a year. NOBODY. There is NOTHING on this planet you can be doing to justify making that much money — unless you’re curing cancer, you have no business making more than 100K a year. Period. That’s what has this country in such an F-ed up state right now. People thinking they’re worth that kinda money.

  5. mr. whig Says:

    Stick to Gannett. You certainly won’t be hurting for content. Ever.

  6. Anonymous Says:

    7:42 sounds like an unreformed communist or an Obama supporter!

  7. Anonymous Says:

    I am sticking to “Gannett” — you don’t think paying people more than they’re worth is part of the problem here? There are old men with hair coming out of their noses and urine stains on their pants that have no business wandering around the halls anymore. I’m sure they’re making salaries that might have made sense back in the day when money was coming out of Gannett’s as_ crack, but now it’s just plain stupid business sense. Half these clowns still have type writers, that’s right TYPE WRITERS on their desks. I mean come the f-ck on.

  8. Jim Hopkins Says:

    The last typewriter-equipped Gannett newsroom I worked in was in Louisville, Ky., at The Courier-Journal. There was a single IBM Selectric near the i-team department. I told people that I would hold a party if anyone rolled it out of the newsroom. But I believe it was still there in January 2000, when I left for USA Today.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: