Big Turk Posted June 24, 2018 Posted June 24, 2018 3 minutes ago, boater said: Implied by the article read as a whole: Sully lost his column because Sully's negative tone did not fit the new business model where most revenue comes from reader subscriptions. The consultants probably made that point very strongly. He was not exactly fired. He just lost his column. Sully is gone by his choice; he accepted the buy out. Admittedly, maybe shaming him into a buyout by killing off his column was the master plan. I wonder what duties they planned for him had he stayed: a new restaurant reviewer? Per the article: the BN was surprised by the number of people taking buy outs. But they stood by their word that buyouts were available to all. Good read from Buffalo Rumbling. Not really...they accepted buyouts from some and refused them from others.
Kelly the Dog Posted June 24, 2018 Posted June 24, 2018 5 hours ago, Mr. WEO said: I never read the BN. Every major city newspaper has a guy like Sully writing a column. He's a guy people love to hate. They read him so they can tee off on him. But they read him. What part of that is so hard for you to understand? That was true before. Now that the News and other papers decided on a paywall, the idea that people read him doesn't exist. Those exact people are saying no freaking way am I paying for Jerry Sullivan. You saw that here.
Nick the Greek Posted June 24, 2018 Posted June 24, 2018 The Bills broke the curse on the field, and now the BN is breaking the curse of being awful to read. Go Buffalo!
IDBillzFan Posted June 24, 2018 Posted June 24, 2018 Can someone tell me what any of them bring at the BN that can't be found elsewhere? Hell, Lori used to write the best pre-game piece of anyone anywhere, not just BN. In depth. Insightful. Unbiased. Just terrific stuff. The guy here who breaks down the post-game All 22 each week? Better than anything I'd read from anyone at BN. When the off season doesn't have people here contemplating a straight up trade of Shady and Kyle Williams to the Browns in exchange for a Ho-Ho and a $2 scratcher, the discussions here about roster moves, trades, pre-draft, post-draft, etc. rivals anything you get from BN. Yes, you get the occasional fluff piece, but I ask again...what did any of them bring at the BN that can't be found elsewhere? If you need a professionally written piece, start and end with JW. 1
Hapless Bills Fan Posted June 24, 2018 Posted June 24, 2018 3 hours ago, 4th&long said: Cause the pegulas pulled $250,000 worth of business from the paper. It was in the article if you read it. That was in the article. But that would only constitute a reason to take away someone's column IF the Pegulas in fact said "This is why we're pulling our business, fire these guys and we'll bring our business back". Otherwise, if the Pegulas took their printing business elsewhere, who knows why? Maybe they were dissatisfied with the quality of the programs or unable to reach an agreement on price, and the firm they went with gave them a better deal. That kind of business reason is the usual reason business people make a decision. 15 minutes ago, LABillzFan said: Can someone tell me what any of them bring at the BN that can't be found elsewhere? Hell, Lori used to write the best pre-game piece of anyone anywhere, not just BN. In depth. Insightful. Unbiased. Just terrific stuff. The guy here who breaks down the post-game All 22 each week? Better than anything I'd read from anyone at BN. When the off season doesn't have people here contemplating a straight up trade of Shady and Kyle Williams to the Browns in exchange for a Ho-Ho and a $2 scratcher, the discussions here about roster moves, trades, pre-draft, post-draft, etc. rivals anything you get from BN. Yes, you get the occasional fluff piece, but I ask again...what did any of them bring at the BN that can't be found elsewhere? If you need a professionally written piece, start and end with JW. I thought Ty Dunne was fantastic and Tim Graham did some great feature pieces. Ty Dunne left for greener pastures and apparently so did Graham. 1
Shaw66 Posted June 24, 2018 Posted June 24, 2018 That's a great report. Thanks for posting. A lot of whining from the guys who took buyouts. This sort of thing has been happening at newspapers all over the country for years, and if they were surprised, then I'd say they foolishly ignored the facts of life in the 21st Century newspaper business. The best writers have been taking buyouts from the Hartford Courant for years, and it was obvious that they took the buyouts because otherwise they would have been reassigned to positions they didn't want. They aren't buyouts, they are layoffs, and as has happened in businesses (not just newspapers) for the past 30 years, the highest paid workers are the ones most likely to get laid off. Sullivan, of course, led the parade of those who foolishly ignored reality. He has been incapable of seeing that his "opinion" is so one-sided, so contrary to simple fact, so biased that powerful people would begin to complain about it. It's one thing to be a critic, it's another to be a maniacal bomb-thrower. I've been saying for a year that the Pegulas would flex their muscles to get Sullivan to return to reasonable criticism or to be silenced altogether, so I'm not surprised to learn that in fact they did deliver the message to the News publishers. Sullivan talks about it in this piece as though he believes he was entitled to write whatever he wanted without consequences. If that's what he thought, then he's just plain stupid. If that's what he wants, then he needs to be a tenured professor somewhere, not a journalist. Do I like it? No. I'd rather have more reporting and columns about the Bills than less, even Sully's columns. Am I surprised it happened? No, and no one else should have been surprised, either. 1
John from Riverside Posted June 24, 2018 Posted June 24, 2018 6 hours ago, Mr. WEO said: I never read the BN. Every major city newspaper has a guy like Sully writing a column. He's a guy people love to hate. They read him so they can tee off on him. But they read him. What part of that is so hard for you to understand? If this is the case they can always hire another Sully....
Big Turk Posted June 24, 2018 Posted June 24, 2018 2 minutes ago, John from Riverside said: If this is the case they can always hire another Sully.... Yup, find a guy who hates himself because he wishes he was something else, and hates his life. Plenty of them out there these days.
The Red King Posted June 24, 2018 Posted June 24, 2018 Problem with the media is...it's not about putting out the best quality, it's about getting the most reads/clicks. That's why there are always one or two outragious placements in Power Rankings...just to get people fired up so they get ten-twenty pages of replies. The media doesn't care if you like their content, they just care if you keep reading it. Sully's column may have become a bit dry, one note...but people kept reading, and that was what mattered. The fact that many read it just to rampage and critisize it is irrelevant...they read it, and that's what mattered. Or, to quote Captain Sparrow, "But you have heard of me!"
Shaw66 Posted June 24, 2018 Posted June 24, 2018 2 hours ago, Mr. WEO said: I think it was one way of getting rid of one of their most expensive staffers. As you know, a lot of the staff was offered a buyout, to slash costs. It gets easier to make a guy choose a buyout when you take away a large part of his job. People need to recognize that economics and economics alone is BY FAR the biggest reason Sullivan is gone. WEO's explanation above is exactly correct. The News wanted to cut expenses, and they did what newspapers all over the country have done for years: Let their most expensive writers choose either a buyout or a reassignment that is unattractive to the writers professionally. It's happened for years. In Sully's case, there was a second economic reason. While the News was trying to grow revenue to improve their numbers, they discovered they were going to LOSE revenue because of Sully's ceaseless rants. For the news, it was simple math: Keep Sully, lose $250,000 a year. Lose Sully, lose what, maybe $10,000 in subscribers? That lost subscriber revenue they make up in savings by being rid of Sully's salary. It's simple economics. Sully was probably gone anyway, but being an ass in his opinions about the Bills sealed his fate. 12 minutes ago, John from Riverside said: If this is the case they can always hire another Sully.... Exactly. If the News wants a guy to bash the Bills, they can hire one for half the price of Sully. And in this case they get the added benefit of keeping the Pegulas happy. Win-win. Sully's history. 1
Hapless Bills Fan Posted June 24, 2018 Posted June 24, 2018 3 hours ago, Mr. WEO said: I think it was one way of getting rid of one of their most expensive staffers. As you know, a lot of the staff was offered a buyout, to slash costs. It gets easier to make a guy choose a buyout when you take away a large part of his job. That's actually a pretty common strategy across industries - the highest paid staff are usually the most set in their ways/difficult to persuade to adopt new ways - and the oldest. You can't fire them preferentially - that usually would be the newest, least-well paid, most adaptable staff. But you can redefine their job duties to make them unhappy, then offer them a "cookie" to leave. COOKIE! 1
Hapless Bills Fan Posted June 24, 2018 Posted June 24, 2018 50 minutes ago, Shaw66 said: Sullivan talks about it in this piece as though he believes he was entitled to write whatever he wanted without consequences. If that's what he thought, then he's just plain stupid. If that's what he wants, then he needs to be a tenured professor somewhere, not a journalist. I think there's a principle about this somewhere. Something about freedom of the press... ...of course, people mistake what that is. The press is protected (or should be) from government consequences for what they write. There's also something in there about the truth being a defense to libel claims. But freedom of the press, and freedom of speech, don't mean freedom from consequences - economic consequences in the form of pulled advertisments, lost subscriptions etc. 1
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted June 24, 2018 Posted June 24, 2018 3 hours ago, Zebrastripes said: I did read it and also read the part where an independent consulting firm polled people and said a number of them would not subscribe if Sullivan and Gleason continued to write for them. The idea Pegula pulled 250k from the paper because of Sullivan is just pure speculation. ...wouldn't that be an advertiser's prerogative versus influence peddling if that is the proper analogy?......so is the underlining perspective that Pegula's $$ is responsible for the job losses?......in my (shallow) opinion, PSE has been an absolute gold mine for Buffalo sports as well as overall regional development.....and I doubt he's done yet......mistakes made as neophyte owners of the Sabres and Bills?....a fool would say "no"....is PSE making every attempt to get better?....only a fool would again answer "no"...BUT....when it gets to the point to where you open a BN Sullivan article anticipating "what's he peeing in his negative Wheaties now (refrain)about the Bills", he's overstayed his welcome.....
oldmanfan Posted June 24, 2018 Posted June 24, 2018 I do find it interesting that Graham and Vogl found new jobs right away but Sullivan and Gleason have not. Maybe the latter two just decided to take a break??
oldmanfan Posted June 24, 2018 Posted June 24, 2018 Have said if before and will say it again, both Gleason and Sullivan were good writers when not writing about the two professional teams but reverted to childish sarcasm and insults when writing about the Bills and Sabres. 1
Shaw66 Posted June 24, 2018 Posted June 24, 2018 46 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: I think there's a principle about this somewhere. Something about freedom of the press... ...of course, people mistake what that is. The press is protected (or should be) from government consequences for what they write. There's also something in there about the truth being a defense to libel claims. But freedom of the press, and freedom of speech, don't mean freedom from consequences - economic consequences in the form of pulled advertisments, lost subscriptions etc. Correct. That's why I said "entitled." He's free to say and write whatever he wants, just as you and I are. That freedom, however, does not mean that he's entitled to have anyone publish it. Sullivan has complained that he was "silenced" for business reasons. I believe he's correct. He's not a stupid guy. He's worked in the newspaper business for years, and I am absolutely certain that he's understood for all that time that the publishers of newspapers respond to business realities on a daily basis. It's not news. He seems to think that he was entitled to be insulated from those realities. Sorry, Jerry, it doesn't work that way for you or anyone else. Never has, never will. If he wants a guaranteed gig, he'll have to buy his own newspaper. 40 minutes ago, oldmanfan said: Have said if before and will say it again, both Gleason and Sullivan were good writers when not writing about the two professional teams but reverted to childish sarcasm and insults when writing about the Bills and Sabres. I never read anything other than their Bills stuff. And even Sullivan's Bills stuff was well written. The guy can write. His writing revealed some deep-seated anger he had about the Bills. He took swings at the Bills every chance he got. He was bitter. He couldn't find any joy in his experience of the Bills, and if there's no joy, what's the point?
4th&long Posted June 24, 2018 Posted June 24, 2018 2 hours ago, Shaw66 said: People need to recognize that economics and economics alone is BY FAR the biggest reason Sullivan is gone. WEO's explanation above is exactly correct. The News wanted to cut expenses, and they did what newspapers all over the country have done for years: Let their most expensive writers choose either a buyout or a reassignment that is unattractive to the writers professionally. It's happened for years. In Sully's case, there was a second economic reason. While the News was trying to grow revenue to improve their numbers, they discovered they were going to LOSE revenue because of Sully's ceaseless rants. For the news, it was simple math: Keep Sully, lose $250,000 a year. Lose Sully, lose what, maybe $10,000 in subscribers? That lost subscriber revenue they make up in savings by being rid of Sully's salary. It's simple economics. Sully was probably gone anyway, but being an ass in his opinions about the Bills sealed his fate. Exactly. If the News wants a guy to bash the Bills, they can hire one for half the price of Sully. And in this case they get the added benefit of keeping the Pegulas happy. Win-win. Sully's history. One quarterly loss in 40 and you gut the sports department? Sounds like management needs to be shown the door. 1
US Egg Posted June 24, 2018 Posted June 24, 2018 (edited) 43 minutes ago, Shaw66 said: He was bitter. I agree. He never envisioned as a graduate of the very prestigious U. of Missouri School of Journalism, which it is, that his career would be limited to what it was. .....a dime a dozen sportswriter. Edited June 24, 2018 by I am the egg man
Hapless Bills Fan Posted June 24, 2018 Posted June 24, 2018 2 hours ago, Shaw66 said: In Sully's case, there was a second economic reason. While the News was trying to grow revenue to improve their numbers, they discovered they were going to LOSE revenue because of Sully's ceaseless rants. For the news, it was simple math: Keep Sully, lose $250,000 a year. Lose Sully, lose what, maybe $10,000 in subscribers? That lost subscriber revenue they make up in savings by being rid of Sully's salary. So about that $250,000 a year in Sabres program printing. I've been told the timeline there was, the Pegulas took their business elsewhere 3 years ago (can't cite source, but should be a good one). Given that timeline, it really doesn't look too plausible that Sully taking a buyout and $250,000 of business printing Sabres programs are related. Again, that speculation seems to have started with a piece written by former TBN writer and current Fredonia journalism professor Elmer Ploetz, who later wrote a 2nd piece stating new information contradicted his speculation that threatened loss of printing business was behind the buyouts. The Buffalo Rumblings article that repeats this speculation does not give a timeline for when the Pegulas took the printing business elsewhere.
Shaw66 Posted June 24, 2018 Posted June 24, 2018 31 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: So about that $250,000 a year in Sabres program printing. I've been told the timeline there was, the Pegulas took their business elsewhere 3 years ago (can't cite source, but should be a good one). Given that timeline, it really doesn't look too plausible that Sully taking a buyout and $250,000 of business printing Sabres programs are related. Again, that speculation seems to have started with a piece written by former TBN writer and current Fredonia journalism professor Elmer Ploetz, who later wrote a 2nd piece stating new information contradicted his speculation that threatened loss of printing business was behind the buyouts. The Buffalo Rumblings article that repeats this speculation does not give a timeline for when the Pegulas took the printing business elsewhere. I didn't understand that. Thanks. In any case, I have no doubt that the Pegulas made their feelings known to the News. They weren't going to tolerate being called a dumpster fire.
Recommended Posts