A deep round of layoffs at The Indianapolis Star is only the beginning of a major restructuring of the company's news operations, Publisher Karen Crotchfelt told IBJ in an interview Wednesday.
The newspaper on Tuesday eliminated 81 positions, 62 of which had been filled, in a move it blamed on a sluggish economic recovery and weak national advertising spending. The layoffs, which included 26 newsroom positions, were part of a purge of 700 employees by parent Gannett Co. Inc.
The next steps for the Star, which remains profitable, include reassigning several remaining staff members to an online-only operation that will double in size to 21, and refashioning the newspaper's suburban coverage, Crotchfelt said.
Most of the eight reporters who lost their jobs Tuesday covered news and sports in suburban areas. Those let go include Josh Duke, who covered Avon and Brownsburg out of the newspaper's west bureau; Melanie D. Hayes, who covered Fishers and Noblesville; Robert Annis, a government and crime reporter in the north bureau; Ted Schultz, who covered high school sports in the north suburbs; and Kevin O'Neal, a reporter in the south bureau.
Suburban coverage will get a new look by the fall, Crotchfelt said.
"We are looking at our suburban strategy in terms of number of zones and doing significant consumer research to see what people are looking for," she said. "We will have a different approach but will continue to serve those readers with the content they tell us they really want."
She declined to elaborate, citing competitive reasons.
Tuesday's layoffs also claimed 12 copy editors, including sports copy desk chief Tom Brew. The Star will not outsource copy editing, Crotchfelt said. Most stories will simply get fewer reads by an editor.
"Be prepared for even more mistakes throughout the paper," wrote Annis, the former north bureau reporter, in a post on Twitter. In another post, he implored readers to "let Gannett know how you feel about their cost-cutting. Fewer reporters = Less news reported."
Crotchfelt acknowledged there will be fewer stories but said the paper will emphasize its "watchdog coverage" and "strong voices," including columnists Matthew Tully and Erika D. Smith.
"From a newspaper standpoint, what we do best that nobody else can do is compelling, in-depth, engaging stories," Crotchfelt said. "We're going to marry that great investigative storytelling with more utility coverage like lists of things to do, serving both ends. We can do that with the staff we have."
She said the Star will go from 10 employees focused solely on digital efforts to 21, with reassignments scheduled for the next few weeks. The digital team was not spared from Tuesday's cuts: research and database editor Michael Jesse and events editor Steve Slosarek were among those laid off.
Others who were let go include fashion writer Jenny Elig, copy editor and Guild treasurer Geoff Ooley, photographer Alan Petersime, and suburban reporter Gretchen Becker. The layoffs also hit seven employees in the newspaper's advertising department.
By continuing to cut local content producers, Gannett risks devaluing its product and putting itself in a worse financial position, wrote Rick Edmonds, who researches business and journalism issues for the Poynter Institute, in a column posted Wednesday.
The elimination of so many more jobs—this is the company's fourth large round of layoffs in three years—"risks accelerating losses of print circulation and, in turn, print ad revenues," Edmonds wrote. "But all-in digital enthusiasts will say, so what, that’s not the future."
Crotchfelt called Tuesday an "extremely painful day."
"We have a lot to work through but I also believe Star Media has a really significant role in the marketplace," she said. "It's going to take some time. We've got some healing to do. But we're going to figure out how to continue to be a strong voice in this community."
The Star has 630 total employees, and another 388 who work for Gannett directly. The newsroom now has 136, down from 230 in 2007.
The local cuts were deeper than the chain's national average because other newspapers laid off more people earlier or recorded stronger ad sales, Crotchfelt said.
She said any cuts she orders are not a factor in her bonus or incentive arrangement with Gannett. The company's CEO, Craig Dubow, earned $9.4 million in 2010, including a $1.75 million bonus partly tied to his efforts at "restructuring costs and creating effeciencies."
The Indianapolis Newspaper Guild plans to review the cuts to ensure the Star followed its contract with union employees, wrote Robert King, the newspaper's religion and philanthropy reporter and the union president, on the Guild website. Represented employees were offered one week of pay for each year served.
He called on the newsroom staff members who remain to focus on telling the city's stories and to continue to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."
"Despite Tuesday’s unpleasantness, despite the corporate greed that made it possible, and despite the sense of loss we all feel, our readers still depend on us to put out a newspaper," King wrote. "We do it to pay the bills, as did our friends. But mostly we do it because we feel it’s important, and because we will never concede defeat to those rat bastards at corporate headquarters."

















IBJ Conversations
55 Comments
Add Comment
Sooo, why buy the paper ?
You said:
"As one in the advertising agency business, the Indianapolis Star ad sales team has for years (since Gannett especially) been the most difficult media to deal with in terms of getting good placement and the best bang for my clients' ad dollars. Unlike other traditional media (radio, TV, cable, print), the Star gives the best position in their paper to those who spend the most. For example, I can buy a single TV spot on WTHR news that WILL run in the news. In addition, the Star switched from circulation to impressions to justify their ad rates. That is, the # of people who read one paper vs the # of homes/business that receive the paper. This makes for confusion on the agency's part when trying to compare one media to a newspaper in terms of audience reach."
First, as I mentioned before, the spots go to whoever is willing to pay for them. One of a TV station General Sales Manager's biggest headaches making sure all the advertisers that were bumped from their "guaranteed" spots because a better rate came in are called and taken care of. You get your spot because your agency is a bigger customer than I am and I guarantee that if push came to shove I would get bumped in favor of one of your customers because of the amount of business your agency does with the station.
Second, newspapers are switching from circulation to readership (not impressions, that's an online term) because for decades, broadcast (radio, TV and cable) has based their rates on viewership, not just the number of TV's in a market. Switching to readership should make the comparison of reach MUCH easier for you because reach is based on the number of people who see an ad/commercial, not how many newspapers/TV's are sold.
You said,
"As the Star's ad sales go directly to the client and ignore their agencies, many of us don't offer newspaper media direction because 1)we cannot guarantee ad position or a better negotiated price, 2) the ad salespeople don't deliver true audience figures and 3) newspapers have never given agency commissions or discounts as do broadcast medias. There has also been an ongoing merry-go-round of ad salespeople lately that eliminates the opportunity to forge long-term relationships between the client and their agencies with the Star."
1 - you can always negotiate price, you just might not win
2 - for decades, newspaper numbers have been underreported compared to how broadcast reports them
3 - all newspapers have commissionable rates for agencies. Those rates are typically 17.65% higher than working directly with the newspaper so the agency can get their 15%. Understand that as opposed to other media, newspapers are self-contained advertising organizations meaning all sales, creative, and production can be done in-house which means that for a local retailer to work with a newspaper, they don't NEED an agency. (oops, did I just say that?)
You said,
"Still another big reason ad agencies tend to shy away from recommending newspaper advertising is the overwhelming glut of ads in any issue. Open today's Star and every page is crammed with all sizes of ads stacked in a column or along the bottom. It's impossible to gauge the "read factor" for clients when the Star has more ads than it does editorial content."
And you can gauge the "read factor" for broadcast? Nobody turns on the TV or the radio because they want to find a good deal on a product. They do so for entertainment purposes and the ads are a part of the "necessary evil" to enjoy it. That is not to say that broadcast commercials are not effective, but to complain about ad clutter in a newspaper when I cant watch more than 8 minutes of a program without 3-4 minutes of commercials coming on is dishonest. Newspapers (and increasingly the Internet) are the only medium that people engage because they want to see the ads. $6 million national Super Bowl ads being the exception.
You said,
"It's interesting to read this week's Star publisher's comments on reasons behind the firing of so many associates whose talents were essential to putting out a well researched, edited and written newspaper. She claims the Star will continue to publish compelling, in-depth, engaging stories. My question is, "Just who is going to write, edit, research and direct these stories?""
That is a very good question and one that every publisher has to wrestle with but I invite you to compare The Star's reporting capabilities in terms of number of people with any radio or TV station in the market.
When you compare prices, don't forget to factor in the production costs of your ad. The Star (and every newspaper across America) will also help you design your ad if you want at no additional charge. Stations do NOT produce your commercial for free. In fact, if you take the money you'd pour into producing a (probably really bad) commercial and apply it toward your newspaper budget, you'd get more exposure AND you'd spend enough to get on a contract through which you could buy premium positioning if you really wanted it.
Your lame cheap commercial doesn't do so well when it airs next to a national one - if it even does. Due to the amount of money they spend, the national guys are given the PREMIUM POSITIONS during the program while the local ads are usually shown between programs when everyone is channel surfing.
It also does not make sense for any company to give premium positioning to a retailer who is going to spend $200 with you and bump a national advertiser who is spending hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars from the position they want. Sorry, premium positions are premium for a reason.
As far as Gannetta and The Star go, I'd like to see a necrology of sorts that accurately reports the number of small, independently owned, community newspapers to which these behemoths have laid waste. There was once a nice crop of small weeklies and some dailies in Indianapolis and its outlying areas. But Gannett has systematically decimated these publications, purchasing them then shuttering them and, in the process, weakening American communities and eroding a key foundation of democracy.
The only thing more sad is American citizens' utter apathy and their tawdry participation in the ongoing popularity contest this country has become.
She is the largest contributor to making the "fallen STAR" a rag of a paper. Seeing her picture on the main page gives me a gag reflex and makes me want to go to another website.
Two, I can get much better National and World coverage on the NET-usually the Washington Post.
Three, Most of the local coverage is about killings, muggings, and it is as if they seldom look for good things. Check the police blotter and forget, I guess.
I just next to never open the Thursday paper, and on Sundays-I throw out all the ads (unless I am looking for something specific at a store close to me). I look at the local/social that is happening around town, the editoral page for Letters to the Editor, the house of the week, and a few other odds and end.
The paper is not worth paying for. I pull it up on the NET and look to see if anything catches my eye....not much does.
Perhaps a good time for a competitor to challenge the Star with a quality newspaper that the community will support. Too bad good journalism has taken a back seat to copying newsbites off the internet.
A single spot on say WTHR news costs X. Regardless of their size and budget, any advertiser can buy that spot for the going rate (based on viewers/ratings) and be guaranteed their TV spot will run in the WTHR news.
A smaller budget advertiser cannot buy an ad of any size and have it guaranteed to be placed in the first 2-3 pages (called Far Forward)of the Indianapolis Star.
The Star makes no promises and you are basically at the mercy of their layout people where your ad is placed in that issue. Smaller ads are usually stacked upon each other.
The more column inches of ads you contract for in the Star, the lower your overall per inch ad rate will be. If you don't have a contract (a promise to place X amount of ads over a time period), you not only pay a higher rate, you also will not be given premium placement. Thus, you cannot get your ad in the front of the Star unless you commit to a large contract.
This isn't so with local TV. You can buy a single TV spot in any show at the going rate and be guaranteed it will run in that show.
There are "low ball" TV spot rates available where you gamble and bid a lower cost for a spot but will be bumped if someone wants to pay a higher cost for that slot. But this practice is usually done by mass marketeers looking to bottom feed on unwanted TV spot inventory.
Adding to the difficulty is the Star's sales staff inflexible stance of never giving the smaller ad budget clients a break with better placement or a lower price. If you don't sign a big contract you're not going to get good placement.
Sounds crazy I know. But this is the way of newspaper ad sales and a big reason local clients tend to look at running an ad in the Star as a hit or more than likely miss proposition.
I am curious how ad pricing on television is different than the Star: at first blush, it makes sense that the advertiser who paid the most would get the best spot. But I'm not in advertising, so I'm sure there's more to it than this.
It's all very sad really.
At least IBJ now has one of the best young reporters that recently worked at the Star.
competition that we got total in depth coverage, expose type stories to keep the politicans and criminals in line. Even Star Talk, the column that did get results in many local cases was dropped-I guess it couldn't be managed just be sitting behind a computer. Now there will be less editing-the mispellings etc are already atrocius. If you want a tv section, it is now an additional charge-and they wonder why subscriptions are harder to come by????
My husband and I were just reminiscing about how excited we were as a young married couple when we finally had enough money to start getting the paper every day. That was a big milestone for us. Now I hardly see ANY value for the money we are paying. Sad to see big business once again ruin an institution.
As the Star's ad sales go directly to the client and ignore their agencies, many of us don't offer newspaper media direction because 1)we cannot guarantee ad position or a better negotiated price, 2) the ad salespeople don't deliver true audience figures and 3) newspapers have never given agency commissions or discounts as do broadcast medias. There has also been an ongoing merry-go-round of ad salespeople lately that eliminates the opportunity to forge long-term relationships between the client and their agencies with the Star.
Still another big reason ad agencies tend to shy away from recommending newspaper advertising is the overwhelming glut of ads in any issue. Open today's Star and every page is crammed with all sizes of ads stacked in a column or along the bottom. It's impossible to gauge the "read factor" for clients when the Star has more ads than it does editorial content.
It's interesting to read this week's Star publisher's comments on reasons behind the firing of so many associates whose talents were essential to putting out a well researched, edited and written newspaper. She claims the Star will continue to publish compelling, in-depth, engaging stories. My question is, "Just who is going to write, edit, research and direct these stories?"
Risks? How much more can the "product" be devalued?
All the changes to date have been negative to readers.
What is needed are positive changes, to encourage people to want to buy the "product." Any positive change (even one) would be welcome.