That warm and fuzzy feeling of job security.

[Sparky]

U.S. media jobs slashed 88 percent

CHICAGO, Jan. 25 (UPI) -- U.S. media job cuts surged 88 percent in 2006 from the previous year, a downsizing trend expected to continue this year, a survey said Thursday.

The media industry slashed 17,809 jobs last year, a nearly two-fold increase from the 9,453 cuts in 2005, outplacement consultancy Challenger Gray & Christmas said.

The figure was the industry's largest annual job-cut total since 43,420 media job cuts accompanied the collapse of the technology bubble in 2001, the survey said.

"A sea change in the way people get and read news, not to mention the way they search for jobs, used cars and consumer products, was the primary contributor," the company said.

Media companies, including the New York Times Co. and Time Inc., have already laid off 2,000 employees in 2007, Challenger noted, saying the cuts suggested the downsizing trend would continue.

"These organizations will continue to make adjustments as their focus shifts from print to electronic," Chief Executive John Challenger said. "Until they can figure out a way to make as much money from their online services as they are losing from the print side, it is going to be an uphill battle."

[Spike]

Originally posted by Sparky:
U.S. media jobs slashed 88 percentWas that the headline, or was that your line? Because it's wrong. If US media jobs have been slashed 88%, but only 17,809 people lost their jobs, that would mean there were only 20,238 people working in media jobs to begin with.

It was an 88% increase from last year in the number of jobs lost. It was not an 88% reduction in the total number of jobs, as the headline suggests. Whoever wrote that should have been number 17,810.

[SpxGrunt]

It was probably reported by someone who didn't have time to check the facts because he was editing the video he just shot.

[Produce man]

Then, of course, he had to prompt the show, put on his coat and apply makeup.

[Spike]

Originally posted by Sparky:
U.S. media jobs slashed 88 percent

CHICAGO, Jan. 25 (UPI) -- U.S. media job cuts surged 88 percent in 2006 from the previous year, a downsizing trend expected to continue this year, a survey said Thursday.

The media industry slashed 17,809 jobs last year, a nearly two-fold increase from the 9,453 cuts in 2005, outplacement consultancy Challenger Gray & Christmas said. Reading this again makes me realize what a terrible article this is, for three big reasons:

First, the numbers are almost meaningless taken out of context like this without any relationship to the whole. Okay, so the number of jobs cut increased by 88%. But how many "US media" jobs are there? If there are only 50,000 US media jobs, then my god, we're all doomed. But if there are a million US media jobs, that's less than 2% of the total. The article is trying to make it sound like job losses are huge, but there isn't enough information given to conclude that.

Second, we can't even find out how many US media jobs there are, because we don't even know what constitutes "US media" in this survey. Obviously in includes print, because the only two examples given were the NY Times and Time, Inc. I would expect it to include television. But what about Internet? Is the Internet not a medium? Are Internet companies not "US media"? I thought those companies were growing.

Without telling us what makes up "US media," these numbers are almost meaningless.

And third, they don't tell us anything at all about where the losses are occurring. We here on this board will read this and be tempted to think "Oh, we're all doomed!" But how many of those 17,809 jobs disappeared from television? If most of them were from print, with newspapers closing and consolidating, we might not be in such bad shape after all. But if all those jobs are from local television stations, teevee people are in a pinch.

But look around. Do you see these kinds of numbers happening around you?

So the article starts with a bogus claim and then throws out numbers with absolutely no context with a slant toward the doom of American media. Great journalism. Like I said, whoever wrote this should have been number 17,810.

[miss hap]

this article is so messed up it's almost performance art.

[ISTHISTHINGON?]

Spike...you sir are correct. This type of writing/statistic is waaaaay to vague to be worth worrying about.

[Lazlo Toth]

Keep the job but get rid of this writer.

[Spike]

Below is a slightly better article, but it still doesn't answer many of the questions. The writers at least tried to give us some kind of context, even if they did it by comparing apples to carburetors.

This article brought up another question, however. These are planned cuts that have been announced by the companies. This isn't a survey of actual jobs lost or gained in the market. This John Challenger consultant tool is trying to make it sound as though there were 17,809 jobs lost last year, but that doesn't follow from the data he's using. Announced cuts may include cuts by attrition, where people simply won't be replaced as they leave voluntarily. Those could take years.

And even if the cuts all took place in 2006, what about jobs created? His figures don't address possible job creation in the Internet sector (which this article establishes as part of US media). If the audience is shifting to the Internet, the market would shift some of the labor pool to the Internet. So perhaps as NBC announces that it is laying off 700 people, one of Google's businesses is hiring 200 people, or another US media business 500 people. Thus, 17,809 announced layoffs may only represent 1,000, 5,000 or 10,000 jobs actually lost.

Anyway, here's the article:

Planned media job cuts up 88 pct in 2006

WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - The number of planned job cuts in the U.S. media sector surged 88 percent last year and that trend will likely continue as readers shift from print to online services, a study on Thursday showed.

For all of last year, the media industry announced 17,809 job cuts, up sizably from the 9,453 cuts announced the prior year, according to the job outplacement tracking firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas.

That was the biggest tally of announced layoffs for the industry since 2001, when the dot.com collapse was under way.

The trend is expected to continue this year, according to John Challenger, chief executive officer at the Chicago-based firm, which tracks planned layoffs, not actual layoffs.

"Already this year we have seen job cuts announced by Time Inc and the New York Times Company," Challenger said. "These organizations will continue to make adjustments as their focus shifts from print to electronic."

For the first half of this month, there have been more than 2,000 planned job cuts announced. However, in terms of total job cuts, the downsizing in the media sector pales in comparison to the auto industry, which saw 158,766 job cuts in 2006.

Still, newspaper publishers, broadcasters and other media companies have been cutting jobs and reevaluating their business models as a growing number of Americans turn to the Internet for news and entertainment.

Since the beginning of 2007, top U.S. magazine publisher Time Inc. said it would cut 289 jobs, the New York Times Co announced plans to shed 125 jobs and close foreign bureaus for its Boston Globe newspaper.

But print media is not alone in the changes. NBC Universal, home to the NBC television network and Universal Studios film unit, announced late last year a $750 million overhaul that includes cutting nearly 700 jobs to invest in its faster growing digital operations. NBC is controlled by General Electric Co.

"Until they can figure out a way to make as much money from their online services as they are losing from the print side, it is going to be an uphill battle," said Challenger of planned cuts across the media sector.

Internet companies also are not immune to the changes. Time Warner Inc's AOL Internet unit is in the midst of cutting 5,000 jobs, or 26 percent of its workforce, as it shifts its business to a model based on Web advertising.

As readers spend more time on the Web, advertisers are not far behind in moving their marketing budgets online. While most companies in the industry are building up their Internet sites and distribution to capture the growth, that has yet to offset weakness at their mainstay print or broadcast businesses.

Internet ad spending is forecast to rise 13 percent in 2007, while network television advertising is seen almost flat from a year ago and newspaper advertising is expected to drop nearly 3 percent, according to media tracking firm TNS.

Not only are newspapers vying with other news organizations for audience share, they are competing with bloggers, industry experts and gossip sites, Challenger said.

"This dilutes their audience and dilutes the amount of money they can charge advertisers, which currently is the primary source of revenue for online news sites, since most are not charging subscriber fees to access their content," Challenger said.
link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070125/bs_nm/usa_economy_jobs_media_dc_1)

[Clever Login Name]

John Challenger is a cool name.

[Fake Post]

Originally posted by Clever Login Name:
John Challenger is a cool name.I was kinda thinking that about the Christmas dude or dudette.

And by the way, does that firm actually need 3 partners to give us that information? Couldn't THEY just get by with, say, Challenger and Christmas and kick Gray to the curb?

[Spike]

Originally posted by Fake Post:
And by the way, does that firm actually need 3 partners to give us that information? Couldn't THEY just get by with, say, Challenger and Christmas and kick Gray to the curb?Maybe Gray is actually the brains of the outfit, but he found that his name is so neutral that no one would pay attention to him by himself. So he brought in Challenger and Christmas to lend a sense of ambition and nostalgia.