From: Tribune Communications
Sent: Tue Oct 05 20:09:33 2010
Subject: Message from Randy Michaels/Anticipated Column About Tribune

We have been informed that tomorrow's New York Times will run a column written by David Carr (http://www.nightofthegun.com/#). Many of the questions Mr. Carr asked us for this article concerned events, distortions and rumors more than two years old. He will apparently paint the work environment at Tribune as hostile, sexist and otherwise inappropriate. Many of the rumors Mr. Carr referenced were spread by an ex-Chicago Tribune employee who is now a contributing writer to the New York Times. Mr. Carr has made clear that he is digging up these old allegations because he believes that decisions about the company's management are about to be made, and he wants to influence those decisions. Mr. Carr knows that an outside firm investigated the most substantial of these allegations, and that they were found to be without substance. Mr. Carr intends to use them anyway.

As you know, it is our intention to create a fun, non-linear creative environment. I am tremendously proud of the results of that creative culture. Our websites on the P2P platform are the most advanced in media. We have reconfigured production of the newspaper with standard ad sizes, Media on Demand Modules, and combined editing, design, and layout functions using technology. We have "Breaking News Centers" that eliminate redundancy and give newsmakers one contact point for each market's most powerful news media. TOPS, TONS, and BRUTUS have changed the way TV is produced and aired.

It is our intention to have creative environment. A creative culture must be built on a foundation of respect for each other. Our goal is an environment where people are free to speak up, free to challenge authority, and free to fail on the way to success. Our culture is NOT about being offensive or hurtful. This is supported by our Harassment Policy. It's in the Employee Handbook which is posted on TribLink-Section 3.

The fact that so many at other media companies dwell on the way it used to be creates great opportunity for those of us willing to rethink our opportunities and recast our culture. Ignore the noise. Treat each other with respect. Have fun, and let's go create the future.

Randy

My goodness. I don't know, it's like he's never read a newspaper before.

In one small part, we'll all agree with Randy Michaels-I also prefer to create workplaces where I am free to swear and be "creative"! (So does, oh right, almost anyone who's ever worked at a newspaper.) And, yes: most modern workplaces are ridiculously uptight. On the other hand, some of us have boundaries and have never bit any of our employees on the neck, as was accused of Randy Michaels in one lawsuit in the 90s. Oh and also I didn't help drain the life blood out of a corporation in the most spectacular, hideous way, leaving behind a series of newspapers that barely exist and should probably be stabbed to death. But God forbid Randy Michaels actually address the substance of the article.

---

See more posts by Choire Sicha

32 comments

How About "Chirp"?

Some social-media fans may disagree, but outside of ornithological contexts, "tweet" has not yet achieved the status of standard English. And standard English is what we should use in news articles.

Except for special effect, we try to avoid colloquialisms, neologisms and jargon. And "tweet" – as a noun or a verb, referring to messages on Twitter – is all three. Yet it has appeared 18 times in articles in the past month, in a range of sections.

Of course, new technology terms sprout and spread faster than ever. And we don't want to seem paleolithic. But we favor established usage and ordinary words over the latest jargon or buzzwords.

One test is to ask yourself whether people outside of a target group regularly employ the terms in question. Many people use Twitter, but many don't; my guess is that few in the latter group routinely refer to "tweets" or "tweeting." Someday, "tweet" may be as common as "e-mail." Or another service may elbow Twitter aside next year, and "tweet" may fade into oblivion. (Of course, it doesn't help that the word itself seems so inherently silly.)

"Tweet" may be acceptable occasionally for special effect. But let's look for deft, English alternatives: use Twitter, post to or on Twitter, write on Twitter, a Twitter message, a Twitter update. Or, once you've established that Twitter is the medium, simply use "say" or "write."

Make of it what you will. But, my quibble? I cannot believe he takes that horrible turn in the last sentence! No one "says" anything on Twitter! That's pollution of the language. One either WRITES or one SAYS. I will never accept the argument that these words are interchangeable!

Related: other words that begin with "t" that the Times won't print include "tuchus."

---

See more posts by Choire Sicha

88 comments

Subject: A note from Arthur and Janet about the Wall Street Journal launch

On the Record . . . From Arthur + Janet

Vol. 4 2010: A New Competitor Arrives

Some folks just have a different learning curve.

After 120 years of existence, The Wall Street Journal this morning has finally decided to cover New York north of Wall Street. In the spirit of journalistic camaraderie, we welcome the Journal's new local section. The New York Times has been the paper of record in New York for nearly 160 years, and we know just how difficult it can be for start-ups to develop a following.

While there will be much sound and fury to this new endeavor, we thought we would take this opportunity to remind everyone about our position of strength in the New York marketplace. We will include a series of numbers that, to borrow a phrase often misused, are "fair and balanced."

Let us start with our audience in The New York Times. As our straightforward and accurate ad campaign points out (and if you get a chance, take a look at our dynamite new commercial: http://nytimes.whsites.net/nyt_centercut/index.html):

o On weekdays, The Times newspaper reaches over 900,000 affluent adults in the New York market (2009, Scarborough NYR2, Weekday). The median household income for a reader of the Sunday New York Times is over $118,000 (Fall 2009, MRI). In fact, The New York Times in print delivers an outstanding household net worth of almost $800 billion in the New York DMA alone (2009 Mendelsohn Affluent Head of Household Survey, HHI, $100,000+).

o The weekday Times reaches 827,000 business professionals, 1,149,255 art enthusiasts and 1,734,360 women in the New York market.

o Our audience is the most influential; The New York Times weekday edition ranks Number One of 129 U.S. print, cable and broadcast media, reaching 61% of all U.S. opinion readers (Erdos & Morgan 2008-2009 U.S. Opinion Leaders Study).

Of course, The New York Times remains the definitive advertising vehicle in the New York marketplace for reaching a diverse audience:

o The New York Times has a 49% print share among the three national newspapers (Kantar Media, full year through December 2009; excludes in-house ads). The others happen to be The Wall Street Journal and USA Today.

o Across key measures for advertising effectiveness, NYTimes.com scores above industry averages – readers remember New York Times ads and are more likely to consider buying products advertised on the site (Dynamic Logic Market Norms, Q4 2008).

o We dominate the luxury advertising market with lush, brand-appropriate retail and editorial environments like T: The New York Times Style Magazine and the Style, Travel, Dining and Home sections.

Advertisers know that Times readers are significant consumers of, well, everything:

o New York Times readers spend $3.2 billion on apparel and accessories; $698 million on jewelry; and $373 million on fragrance, cosmetics and skin care products (Mendelsohn Affluent Head of Household Survey, HHI $100,000+).

o Times readers, who attend live entertainment events, go on average to four Broadway plays a year (2008-2009 Broadway League Demographics Study and NYT Customer Insight Group, January 2010).

o And book advertisers constantly tell us that nothing raises awareness like a New York Times review. Our readers purchased almost 56 million books in 2008 (MRI Spring 2009).

We could go on and on with favorable reader and advertising comparisons. We could also talk forever about our award-winning, agenda-changing journalism and how we set the standard in New York in so many different areas, from art, health and real estate to fashion, entertainment and politics.

The Wall Street Journal already knows our readers and advertisers are very loyal to The New York Times and it will soon discover the intensity of that dedication, as The Times is a great newspaper, a great Web site and a great advertising vehicle.

So as our welcome gift to New York, we pass on a few helpful hints to our Journal colleagues: the Dodgers now play in Los Angeles, Soho is the acronym for South of Houston, Fashion Week has moved to Lincoln Center, Idlewild is now JFK and Cats is no longer playing on Broadway.

If you happen to know anyone who works for the Journal's new section and he or she wants any additional information about the greater New York region, tell them to check out NYTimes.com's always very helpful archive.

Arthur and Janet

---

See more posts by Choire Sicha

22 comments

David, I know you're busy with the accountant, preparing our 2009 taxes (which: LOL), but I wanted to bring to the company's attention my Barack Obama-given right to pump my breast milk at work, as well as the right of all our wonderful contributors to come into the office, pump their breast milk, and then depart (with or without it). You boys might not have this as a high priority, hence this memo. My right to a "reasonable break time" in the pursuit of milk expression is now the law of the land, as it is for both employees and nonexempt hourly workers, at companies larger than 50 employees, and other companies, such as ourselves, that wish to become real companies.

Furthermore, you will notice that I must be provided with a room other than the bathroom that is both private and "free from intrusion" by both co-workers and the public, where I may pump my breast milk. Please begin construction on this room. (I would like it to be free from intrusion by the cat as well, but there's nothing in the law about that, I don't think.)

So. Where is my pumping station? Do not make me call Mary HK Choi over here. If you go visit a real business, you will see a pumping station about every 20 feet (that's the little room that's usually being used-by men!-to make cell phone calls). If you want some advice, you could ask Nick Denton-Gawker Media has a headcount of more than 50, so they'll definitely be installing a pumping station in their groovy, open plan, glass conference room havin' office.

I will follow up on this memo in 2014, when I Can Haz LLC is going to be forced somehow to provide us with health insurance. Unless I have died from lack of health care by then, which actually isn't entirely impossible.

CAS/hs

---

See more posts by Choire Sicha

42 comments

You might have seen a story that two gay dudes were fighting at a welfare office. The source: some blog that posted a video of two gay dudes fighting at a welfare office.

Now our default stance is obscurantism. Choire Sicha (sorry, Choire) did a typical Awly item. It's done as a compare-and-contrast post, dripping with the author's implication that he's upset and showing two videos — both strangely described.

J-Setting Marmaduke Welfare Office Cat Fight Video Dance-Off

6 new visitors. Pretty pathetic considering we're talking about the intrinsic hotness of the subject, which, I will remind you, is gay dudes fighting at a welfare office.

Now I'm not arguing that we should champion the idea of homosexual fisticuffs at government benefits offices. But this video had a bit more going for it than usual: gay dudes fighting at a welfare office. And we can inject some clarity, which might improve the chance the story gets passed around.

One possibility: just make the post an explainer and ask a question in the headline. Try this: Want To See Something Awesome? Or, How Cool Is This Video Of Gay Dudes Fighting At A Welfare Office? Or, Gay Dudes Fighting At Welfare Offices: A Look Back? Or even, Are There Naked Pictures Of Megan Fox Underneath This Video Of Gay Dudes Fighting At The Welfare Office? The answer might be No. (Particularly if you go with the Megan Fox title.)

But let's at least encourage the readers to get as far as our answer — rather than turning them away at the headline. I know that's what makes you "cool," and "hip," and "different," but I am tired of doing this every day and I want to sell this fucker as soon as possible. You're so obsessed by the nearby hills (being "arty" and "not the usual clickwhoring site") that you're missing the summit (GAY DUDES FIGHTING AT A WELFARE OFFICE). Me needs monies, stop fucking it up.

Now if you'll excuse me I need to forward this memo on to various media blogs to help maintain my reputation as The Evilest Employer Ever. If you need me I'll be cackling maniacally in the back.

---

See more posts by Alex Balk

55 comments

From Denton's memo regarding Cityfile, sent to the staff:

For the first few years of Gawker Media, the business press had one
abiding preoccupation: when are you going to sell out? Today we're
giving the M&A gossips something else to talk about. The company is
making its first acquisition: Cityfile, the New York news site founded
by Remy Stern. The price is not being disclosed.

Cityfile will be the New York and media industry channel on Gawker,
alongside Valleywag and Defamer, our tech and entertainment sub-sites.
Cityfile's 2,000-plus profiles of New York notables will be the
centerpiece of our new topic and people pages. And Remy Stern, a
former writer on several Gawker sites and editor at the now-legendary
Radar magazine, will take over as editor-in-chief of Gawker. He starts
on February 22nd.

We had hoped to persuade Gabriel Snyder to stay in a management role.
But he's moving on. With help from an awesomely strong team of writers
and the new Gawker.tv operation, Gabriel doubled Gawker's audience
during his tenure (http://bit.ly/c6BXk8.) To anyone out there looking
to build up an online property: snap him up quickly.

Does this mean Gawker is going on an acquisition spree?

Well, it's a question of scale. Each of the Gawker titles does already
have more than 1m US visitors a month — making them usually the
largest or second largest blog title in their category. Nevertheless
the threshold of advertising success does continue to rise and we're
increasingly competing online with TV and newspaper groups.
Moreover, we've long actively managed our portfolio of properties,
selling Consumerist to Consumers Union last year, for instance — or
closing down unsuccessful properties. To achieve critical mass in
entertainment and tech, we have indeed looked at a few opportunities
in the last few months. If online media is consolidating, we'd rather
be a consolidator than consolidatee. And revenue growth of 22% in 2009
provides the resources. (Deal ideas? Contact Gaby Darbyshire.)
Don't get too excited, however. The successful launches of Jezebel and
io9 confirmed our belief that it's usually more effective to build
than buy. Lifted by the iPad launch and the late-night TV wars, our
nine sites — all launched inhouse — drew a US audience of more than
14m in January. Our best editorial investment continues to be the
recruitment of great writers and producers on our own sites — and the
pursuit of hot stories.
Nick

For reasons which I'm not too clear on, but I'm sure Nick Denton will
explain momentarily, I am being replaced as editor-in-chief of Gawker.

Honesty is Gawker's only virtue, so it seems inappropriate to engage
in the usual corporate euphemisms of "wanting to explore new new
opportunities" or "take a larger role in the company" or "spend more
time with my family" (though eighteen-hour days and seven-day work
weeks do take their toll on personal relationships), so I'll put this
as plainly as we'd report any other masthead ouster: I am being
canned.

Building this website into what it is today — a big operation with 11
writers, a regular source of national news and a challenger to the
mainstream media organizations that it once mocked — has been the
best job of my career. Transitioning from print to online meant
adopting an entirley new biorhythm. Transitioning from writer to
editor has meant learning to bask in the reflected glory of the
talented staff who contribute every day. I love Gawker and adore the
crew that makes it happen.

You deserve all the credit; my role has been to push you to be
yourselves: Alex Pareene's incisive political commentary, John Cook's
dogged reporting and clear-headed analysis, Brian Moylan's ability to
enunciate conversation-starting ideas, Richard Lawson's ability to
produce dazzling copy at superhuman speeds, Ryan Tate's cliche-free
coverage of Silicon Valley, Hamilton Nolan's workhorse ethic and
humor, Doree Shafrir's gimlet-eyed appraisals of the culture and
society around her. Waking up each morning to the work of Adrian Chen,
Maureen O'Connor and Ravi Somaiya is a pleasure. Watching Foster Kamer
dance on the stage each weekend is a joy. You, without a doubt, make
up the strongest staff Gawker's ever had, and make the site the best
it's ever been.

Eighteen months ago, when I first sat down with Nick to discuss taking
over the Gawker helm from him, I saw a huge opportunity to build a
site from its roots as an intimate discussion among Manhattan's power
elite and build it into a national news brand (an aspiration that
seems to come up every time there's a masthead shakeup around here).
Attaining those goals have been the biggest accomplishment of my
career. As I saw it, Facebook, Twitter and smaller blogs had slowly
encroached on the role Gawker once served. Among the most difficult,
though most rewarding to the site, efforts was to take the site from a
bankers' hours schedule to publishing 24 hours around the clock,
weekends included. I believed the site could be grown beyond its
traditional audience by focusing on news from the nation's four
cultural capitals (New York, D.C., L.A. and San Francisco) — which
became even more clear when I was given the task of integrating former
standalone sites Defamer and Valleywag into the flagship. Oh, and then
there have been the stories. It's become common to see national
newspapers and broadcasts cite Gawker on vast array of stories: the
U.S. Kabul embassy security dudes behaving badly, the Hipster Grifter
saga, leading the entire media for a weekend on the Balloon Boy
fiasco, those pictures of Katie Couric dancing, pillorying Harold Ford
through simple questions, Annie Leibovitz's financial meltdown, the
Late Night Wars, Facebook privacy, Anna Wintour ... more than I can
count. I was determined to compete with the biggest news sites on the
internet. And today, I am glad to say it does.

But the history of Gawker Media careers shows that they tend to burn
bright and fast. So it shouldn't have come as a much of a surprise
when our mercurial owner told me he's hatched other plans for Gawker.
He offered me a new, temporary position as an assistant managing
editor of Gawker Media as a holding job, which I have declined. I
can't see how I'd be in a position to succeed at the role going into
it with one foot literally out the door. I'll be editing the site
until Friday. After that, please stay in touch [REDACTED].

And needless to say, as of now I am on the market and will be beating
the media bushes for my next opportunity.

I will miss you all.

Best,
Gabriel

---

See more posts by Choire Sicha

76 comments

On the Record . . . From Arthur & Janet

Vol. 3 Our Circulation Strategy

September 14, 2009

To Our Colleagues,

A reader recently wrote, "I feel that the importance of The Times is so
great that I would pay $70 million for access to the most important paper
in the free world."



We appreciate the thought but while things are difficult for newspapers,
they haven't reached that point.

As our advertising revenues have declined, we have asked our readers to
bear more of the cost of our journalism, as many other newspapers have done
with their readers. They have demonstrated a willingness to do so. As a
result, in the first half of this year we have seen gains in circulation
revenues at The Times, the Globe, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, the Santa
Rosa Press Democrat and some of our other regional newspapers. In this
issue of On the Record, we'll talk about our circulation strategy and how
it has improved our financial results.



Let's start with our underlying premise. We believe that we provide very
high-quality news, information and entertainment to our readers. We also
believe that our premium quality journalism warrants a premium price. This
is why we have experimented in the past with online subscription models.
It's also why we continue to explore ways to derive more revenue from our
digital content than we get from the advertising and other secondary
revenue streams we have today. We plan to discuss that in a future issue
of On the Record.



Today circulation revenues make up a greater percentage of the Company's
revenues than they did in the past. Five years ago, advertising accounted
for 67 percent of our total revenues and circulation made up 27 percent.
In the second quarter of this year, advertising totaled 54 percent of our
revenues and circulation was 39 percent. Circulation revenues have grown
to the point that last year they were the highest they have been in our
history.

We don't mean to suggest that there have not been any cancellations or that
circulation volume hasn't declined. It has. But there have been far fewer
cancellations from price increases than we expected at both The Times and
the Globe. The reader retention rates for The Times and the Globe are
enviable – for subscribers of two years or more, the rate is roughly 90
percent for both papers. In fact, The Times has more than 830,000 readers
who have subscribed for two years or more, up from 650,000 in 2000.



Some of the volume declines at our newspapers are attributable to our
deliberate strategy of focusing on individual readers who pay to get their
paper rather than discounted copies, such as those distributed at hotels,
conventions and other venues. Advertisers value these individual readers
since they are deeply engaged with our newspapers.

Why do readers continue to embrace print? The reason newspapers have
endured for more than 400 years is because they work. People understand
how newspapers are organized – if a story is above the fold, it's more
important than below the fold. If it appears on the front page, it's more
newsworthy than one inside the paper. Readers enjoy the serendipity of
finding something new that they didn't realize they were interested in but
discovered in the pages of their paper. Newspapers are portable. They
offer a point in time assessment of the news.



In order to get The Times in the hands of even more readers, we are working
with organizations across the country to print and distribute the paper.
Most recently we announced a new agreement to print The Times in Nashville,
enabling us to expand newsstand and home delivery to readers in the area
and to better serve our current readers in Tennessee, northern Alabama,
northern Mississippi, eastern Arkansas and western Kentucky. Today The
Times is printed at 26 locations across North America.

We expect the print editions of The Times, the Globe and our regional
newspapers will be around for years to come. But we are a news company,
not a newspaper company. We are committed to offering our consumers our
content wherever and whenever they want it and even in ways they may not
have envisioned – in print or online – wired or mobile – in text, graphics,
audio, video or even live events. Because of our high-quality journalism,
we have very powerful and trusted brands that attract educated, affluent
and influential audiences. These audiences are a true competitive
advantage as we move into an increasingly digital world.



We hope this is helpful in understanding our circulation strategy. If you
have any questions on this or other issues, please send us an e-mail at: a
rthur_and_janet@nytimes.com

Arthur & Janet

---

See more posts by Choire Sicha

4 comments

---

See more posts by Choire Sicha

2 comments

On the Record . . . From Arthur + Janet

Vol. 2 The Story of Our Debt

July 15, 2009

To Our Colleagues,


As many of you read, yesterday we announced the sale of WQXR, "The Radio Station of The New York Times." This is another step in the realignment of our portfolio of properties and our initiative to reduce our debt.


Over the past six months or so, one question that we have heard time and time again from employees and others is: "What is the state of the Company's debt?" Given that and the news about WQXR, we thought it would be worthwhile to discuss it with you today.


The Company carries approximately $1 billion in debt but of that amount only about $45 million matures before 2011, and we expect to repay that in November with cash flow from operations and our revolving credit agreement. The majority of our debt isn't due until more than five years from now – in 2015. As a recent article in AdAge (http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=137628) asked, "But can it [the Times Company] last through 2011? As it turns out, we think the answer is yes, and then some."

We couldn't agree more. Let us walk you through the recent steps that give us such confidence.


At the end of 2008, we had approximately $1.1 billion in debt outstanding. That included debt under two revolving credit agreements. These are agreements with banks that allowed us to borrow up to $400 million under each agreement, or $800 million in total, whenever we needed it. On an ongoing basis, we repay what we borrow as cash comes in and the amount we can borrow is then replenished. Revolving credit agreements are commonly used by companies to manage their day-to-day cash requirements.


One of these agreements expired in May 2009. The other agreement will expire in June 2011.

At the end of last year, we had borrowed about $400 million under these two agreements. We also had approximately $100 million in bonds due to be paid in November 2009 and another $250 million due in March 2010.


Knowing that this debt was coming due, last fall we started to explore a transaction with Carlos Slim, one of our largest shareholders. In January we arranged for a loan for $250 million due in 2015 with Banco Inbursa and Inmobiliaria Carso, which are part of Mr. Slim's holdings.


Both our Board of Directors and our outside financial advisors supported this transaction. With the proceeds from it, we paid off the borrowings under our May 2009 agreement, which then expired. We also repurchased roughly half of the $100 million in bonds due in November, which leaves about $45 million that we plan to repay with cash flow from operations and our revolving credit agreement.


We are paying an interest rate of 14% on the Inbursa debt. Yes, it's a high rate, but given the state of our economy, our industry and the credit markets at the time we did the transaction, we believe it's both fair and financially sound.


The transaction also includes warrants, which are like options, and give Mr. Slim the right to purchase 15.9 million Class A shares at approximately $6.36 a share. He has not asked for nor been offered a Board seat and does not have a history of activism in the companies in which he invests. This transaction in no way changes the control of the Company since that continues to reside in the Class B shares held by the Ochs-Sulzberger
Trust.


After we completed the Inbursa transaction, we did a sale-leaseback of the majority of the space we own in our headquarters building. We sold this space to W. P. Carey and, in turn, they gave us $225 million. We simultaneously leased back the space and pay them rent. At the end of 10 years, we can buy back the space we sold them for approximately $250 million. With the proceeds from this transaction and other funds, we paid off all of the $250 million in bonds due in March 2010.

Going forward, we plan to use the proceeds from divestitures, such as WQXR and the potential sale of our interest in the Boston Red Sox, to bring our debt level down even more. This is what we did in 2007 when we sold our Broadcast Media Group.


We have been pro-active and disciplined in addressing our long-term debt obligations. So, again, the short answer to the question on the state of our debt is that we strongly believe we have the financial strength and flexibility to manage through this difficult time.


We hope all of this is helpful in better understanding our finances. You can find more information about the Company in its annual and other reports at www.nytco.com.


If you have any questions on this or other issues, please send us an e-mail at: arthur_and_janet@nytimes.com




Arthur & Janet

---

See more posts by Choire Sicha

11 comments

On the Record . . . From Arthur + Janet

June 25, 2009

To Our Colleagues,

The month of May came and went and, contrary to the prediction of one writer, we did not stop printing The New York Times. But given all the speculation and incorrect information that has been reported about our Company, we think it is important to create a regular letter written so that you get the facts directly from us – on the record. In the first of what we expect will be frequent e-mails, we'd like to talk about recent events at The Boston Globe. Future letters will discuss financial transactions, advertising, circulation, costs and the digital challenges we face as well as other issues as they arise.

All of you know, only too well, that this has been a difficult time for the economy, the industry and our Company. The recession has amplified the downward secular trends in our business and caused steep declines in advertising revenue, particularly in the recruitment, real estate and automotive categories.

The Globe was one of the first metropolitan newspapers to be deeply affected by the secular and cyclical forces that are now roiling the entire media industry. Revenues at the New England Media Group (which includes the Globe, Boston.com, the Worcester Telegram & Gazette and its Web site) have declined from $700 million in 2004 to $524 million last year.

In the fall of 2008, the Globe and Boston.com developed a strategic plan to deal with their operating loss, which earlier this year was projected to be roughly $85 million in 2009. The plan has several components to increase revenues and lower costs. Here are the strategic steps we have taken:

• We have just completed the consolidation of printing facilities in Boston, which is expected to save $18 million a year.

• In the last month, we significantly raised prices on newsstand and home-delivered copies of the paper.

• The compensation of the Globe's managers and other nonunion employees were significantly reduced in 2009/2010 through a salary reduction and elimination of their annual incentive plan.

• The Globe's labor contracts are being restructured in order to save $20 million in annual operating costs – essential to our turnaround plan. We had reached agreements with seven unions that provided slightly more than $10 million in savings. Yesterday we reached an agreement, which is subject to ratification, with the Boston Newspaper Guild, which would provide us with another $10 million in expense reductions.

There will be still more to come but with these steps the Globe is on a path to a more secure financial future. We are deeply grateful to all of our colleagues in Boston for the hard work and sacrifices they have made to put the Globe on a stronger financial footing.

In future letters, you'll hear from us about other things we are doing to strengthen our Company and prepare us for the future. These are tough times and we recognize that all of you are working very hard to make tomorrow better than today.

Thank you, we deeply appreciate it.

Arthur & Janet

---

See more posts by Choire Sicha

7 comments