Because newspapers have historically been quite profitable, most of them have been bought up by huge corporations whose primary interest is profit instead of service. When profits decline, they show their true colors by laying off people ruthlessly to fulfill their unrealistic promises to Wall Street.
It's perfectly natural that newspaper profits aren't as high as they once were --- and they shouldn't be. The truth may be that newspaper publishing will never be as easy, or as profitable, as it once was. Newspapers no longer enjoy a monopoly (and in the long haul that'll be good for us and good for the country).
There has been a proliferation of new sources of information, and new forms of merchandising. And there are emerging technologies that are sure to change newspapers even more, and to threaten those that fail to change (or that make the wrong changes). Wall Street had better get used to lower profits, or they're going to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
Independent is owned by a non-profit journalistic trust. We don't have to meet Wall Street's profit expectations. Because we don't have to pay dividends, we can thrive on modest profits. We still need profits to continue to invest in the company's future growth, to service our debt, and to maintain adequate cash reserves. But we are free to reinvest every penny of after-tax profits back into the company and its journalistic mission.
We are making significant investments in the company’s future. And to pay for those investments, we are currently scrambling (just like the rest of the industry) to improve our profits. Yet there are significant differences in how we do it.
For example, our company has not had a mass layoff of personnel in over 35 years. This is remarkable for a company of any size, and should be a special source of pride for all INIers.
It is sad that so many American companies are addicted to a “boom or bust” mentality. They over-hire when things are going well, and then are far too quick to engage in mass layoffs. This seems to be a never-ending cycle that continues without any consideration of the human suffering that it causes. It’s also a clueless way to do business because it is demoralizing (even to the people who don’t get laid off) and destroys long-term trust in the company.
INI’s people are aware of the many other companies that have chosen layoffs as the path to profit improvement, and they're appreciative that their company rejects such "easy" solutions and instead pursues more creative and compassionate approaches.
Our people continue to prove that this layoff nonsense simply isn’t necessary. Yes, we too must reduce our workforce at times. But we do it by engaging in what we call “Operation Silver Lining” --- a proactive plan that allows us to make workforce adjustments without victimizing innocent people.
Operation Silver Lining requires some sacrifices by the company and its people. But one of the things I’ve always loved about INI’s people has been their unfailing willingness to make these sacrifices so we can avoid layoffs.
Here’s how they do it:
1. The company resists the temptation to engage in massive layoffs. Payroll is our biggest controllable expense, so layoffs would provide a “quick fix” and would improve profits faster and more dramatically. But we feel it would be a breach of faith with our people, so we’re willing to take a slower and more difficult route. Instead….
2. We terminate staffers who aren’t productive. (We don’t engage in layoffs, but we do terminate employees who still aren’t productive despite our coaching. This should be ongoing, but sometimes we get lazy about it. When workforce reductions are necessary, it forces us to be more diligent.)
3. We identify positions that could be eliminated either permanently or temporarily, via transfer or attrition, and we try to identify individuals in those positions who might be flexible enough to succeed (at least temporarily) in positions other than the ones they currently occupy.
4. We ask some individuals to accept temporary transfers to other departments --- or even other offices --- to revenue-producing areas and/or to fill essential positions where we have openings that would otherwise have to be filled with a new hire.
5. We do not automatically fill open positions, and there are no new hires without the express permission of the appropriate vice president and president. (This allows us to seize every opportunity to reduce workforce via attrition or transfer.)
I'd love to hear from you at JoeSmyth@newszap.com. Do you agree or disagree with the thinking outlined above? Do you feel your company is taking the right approaches to prepare for a prosperous future? What can you personally do to help? Could you become a candidate for a temporary or permanent transfer under “Operation Silver Lining”, or do you have other ideas you think we should consider?
