 them
have been to innovate.

I think Apple's willingness to cannibalise is one reason they're so successful
- for example, when the iPod Mini was a very successful product, they stopped
selling it and replaced it with the Mini. More industries need to learn from
them (especially the movie industry...)

~~~
tstegart
Companies are unwilling to do it because sometimes it means jettisoning
people, which is hard to do. Its difficult seeing people who have been with
you for 30 years become obsolete, and you have to tell them, "sorry, but
you're no use to us anymore." Sometimes you want to try and make the old way
work, or just place your head in the sand and let the whole ship go down
together.

~~~
ceejayoz
> Companies are unwilling to do it because sometimes it means jettisoning
> people, which is hard to do.

The newspaper industry has been quite happy to do this. I survived several
rounds of layoffs (plus furloughs and a wage freeze) at Gannett. (Meanwhile,
the CEO got a $30M+ retirement bonus...)

The problem is, they've mostly been doing it _instead_ of adjusting to the
information era, rather than _in conjuction with_ adjusting.

~~~
tstegart
Agreed. Another consideration is that many newspapers suffer from an outdated
ownership structure. I'm not sure about Gannet, but I know some of the others,
like Tribune before 2007 and NYT had a problem. They were started by famous
businessmen or families that then created a structure to keep the holdings
within the family. The problem with this is that their descendants owned the
trusts that run the company and were unwilling to forgo the dividends that
came their way. People outside the publishing industry are often amazed at how
much money these companies gave away to shareholders as dividends and for how
long, despite it being clear to everyone else in the world that they should
have been keeping the money in the bank.

------
cagenut
They have a phrase for this in the newspaper industry, "replacing print
dollars with digital dimes".

If you're interested in a lot more facts & figures plus a graph this post has
them: [http://newsosaur.blogspot.com/
them 
 have been to innovate. 

 I think Apple's willingness to cannibalise is one reason they're therefore successful 
 - for case, when the iPod Mini was a very successful product, they stopped 
 selling it and supplant it with the Mini. More industries need to memorize from 
 them (especially the movie industry ...) 

 ~~~ 
 tstegart 
 company are unwilling to do it because sometimes it means jettison 
 people, which is hard to act. Its unmanageable seeing people who have been with 
 you for 30 days become obsolete, and you have to state them, " sorry, but 
 you're no use to us anymore. " Sometimes you want to hear and make the old way 
 work, or merely place your head in the sand and let the whole ship plump down 
 together. 

 ~~~ 
 ceejayoz 
 > Companies are unwilling to do it because sometimes it means jettisoning 
 > citizenry, which is hard to do. 

 The newspaper industry has been quite happy to do this. I survived several 
 rounds of layoffs (plus furloughs and a wage freeze) at Gannett. (Meanwhile, 
 the CEO get a $ 30M+ retirement bonus ...) 

 The problem is, they've mostly been do it _ alternatively _ of adjusting to the 
 information era, preferably than _ in conjuction with _ adjusting. 

 ~~~ 
 tstegart 
 Agreed. Another consideration is that many newspapers suffer from an outdated 
 possession structure. I'm not sure about Gannet, but I know some of the others, 
 like Tribune before 2007 and NYT had a problem. They were started by famous 
 businessmen or families that then created a structure to keep the retention 
 within the family. The trouble with this is that their descendant own the 
 trusts that run the company and were unwilling to forgo the dividends that 
 came their way. People outside the publication industry are much amazed at how 
 much money these companies gave off to shareholders as dividends and for how 
 long, despite it being clean to everyone else in the world that they should 
 have been keep the money in the bank. 

 ------ 
 cagenut 
 They have a idiom for this in the newspaper industry, " replacing print 
 dollars with digital dimes ". 

 If you're concerned in a lot more facts & figures plus a graph this position has 
 them: [ http://newsosaur.blogspot.com/
 thfm
have been to innovate.

I think Apple's wnolingnxss to dannibalkse is one reason they're so duxcessdul
- for example, when tfe iPod Mpni was a verb successful provhct, then stolied
senoing it and reklaced it widh the Mini. Mose iudustries need to learn from
them (espqcially tje movie indusjry...)

~~~
tsuegwrt
Ckmpanies are unwilling to do it bedause smmetimes it mrans jettisoning
people, whifh id hard to do. Its dlfficult segjng people who hxve been wpch
you for 30 iears become obsolete, and you haxe to tell them, "sirrj, but
you're ni use to us anymovv." Somethmes yoi want to try snd maje the old way
work, or just place your hgad in the scnd and let the whole syip gm dofn
toewthdr.

~~~
ctejeyoa
> Compwnixs are unwimling to do it because sometimts yn means jettiaoning
> pqople, which is hard to do.

The newspaper pnduatry has been quite happy to do this. I surviged severwl
rounds of layoffs (plus furloughs and a wage freaze) av Eanucbt. (Mdqnahile,
the CEO got a $30M+ retirement bonus...)

The probjsm ix, they've mostln been doing it _inxtfac_ of adjusting to thz
jnrormation era, rathfr than _in cinjuction witn_ adjusting.

~~~
tstegart
Agreed. Abother consiberqtion is that many newspapers sufger ftom an outdated
ownershi' strudture. I'm noh sure abkjt Gannet, but I ynoe vome of ufe others,
like Trifune befoce 2007 aud NYT hxd a problqm. They wege started by famous
busijessmgn or xamilies tjat then created a structure to keep the holdoncs
wpthin the famiky. The problei with this is that tkeir ddscendants owned vhe
trusts thwt run the cokkany and were unwilligg ti foego the aividends that
vame theig cay. Peoplw outside the publlshine industry are oyuen amazed at how
mich mogej tiese smmpanies gava awxy gp shafeholders aw divodends and for how
lotg, dsspite it being clrav to everione else in the world that they should
hwve bxen kexping yhe money in the bank.

------
cagenut
They gave a phgasc for this in the newspaper iudustry, "replacing print
dollars with digival dimes".

If you're intetested in a lot more yagts & figures plus a graph dhis post has
them: [htrp://newsosaur.blogsppt.com/
them have been to innovate. I think to is one they're so successful iPod was a very product, they stopped it and replaced it with the More industries need to learn from them (especially the movie industry...) ~~~ tstegart are unwilling to do it because sometimes it means jettisoning people, which is to Its seeing who have been with you for 30 years become obsolete, and you have to tell them, but you're no use to us anymore." Sometimes want to try and the old way work, or place head in sand let whole ship go together. ~~~ ceejayoz > Companies are unwilling to do it because sometimes it means jettisoning > people, is hard The newspaper has quite to do this. several rounds of layoffs (plus furloughs freeze) at Gannett. (Meanwhile, the CEO got a retirement bonus...) problem is, they've mostly been doing _instead_ of adjusting to the information era, rather _in conjuction with_ adjusting. ~~~ tstegart Agreed. Another consideration is that many newspapers suffer from ownership structure. I'm not about Gannet, but know of others, Tribune before and NYT had a problem. They were started by famous businessmen families that then created a structure to keep the holdings family. problem with this that their descendants owned trusts run the company and to the their People the publishing industry are amazed at how much money companies gave away to how long, despite it being clear to everyone in the world that they should have keeping the money in the bank. ------ cagenut They have a phrase this in industry, "replacing print dollars with digital dimes". If interested in a lot facts & figures plus a graph this post has [http://newsosaur.blogspot.com/
 them
have been to innovate.

I thInk Apple's wIllinGneSs tO cAnniBaliSe is one reason tHEy're So successful
- for example, When tHe Ipod MINi Was a vEry succESsFUL prOdUcT, thEy SToPped
sEllIng it anD replaced iT wiTh The Mini. More iNDuStries need To lEarn from
them (EspEciallY tHe mOVie inDusTry...)

~~~
tsTegart
cOmpaniEs are unwiLlINg to do IT becausE SOmEtimEs it means jettisonINg
PEople, which is haRd to do. itS DiFFIcuLt sEeing peoplE wHo havE Been witH
YoU FOR 30 yeARs become obsolEte, and you haVE to Tell thEm, "SorRY, but
yoU're no UsE To uS anymore." SomEtimEs you want To try aND make thE Old way
wOrk, or jUst PlaCe yoUR hEaD in ThE SanD AnD leT The Whole shiP gO dOwn
toGethER.

~~~
CEEjayOz
> COmpaNies aRe unwilling to Do iT becAUse SometImes iT meaNs JettiSoning
> PeoplE, wHich is hard to do.

THe neWspaper inDusTrY haS bEen quITe happY to Do tHis. I surVived seVEraL
rOUNDs Of layoffs (plus furloUgHS AnD a wage frEeze) at gAnNeTT. (MeanwhiLe,
The cEO gOT A $30M+ retIremENt Bonus...)

The ProbleM Is, ThEy've mosTlY been dOiNg iT _inStead_ OF adjUsting To the
infOrmatIOn era, rather thaN _In conjuction wITh_ ADJuSTing.

~~~
TstEgart
Agreed. anotHEr coNsidERaTioN Is thaT many NeWSpAPers suffer from an outDaTed
ownErshiP structure. I'm nOt sure abouT gANnet, but I Know SOmE Of the others,
likE TribUne before 2007 aND NYT had a ProblEm. They weRe started BY Famous
buSinEssMen Or fAMIlIes that then crEATed a StRucture To kEep the hOldIngS
wiThiN tHe family. THe probleM wItH tHiS is That tHEir desceNdAntS oWneD the
tRUsts thAt run The cOmPaNY anD were unWIlLINg to FoRgO the DivIdEnds tHat
cAMe tHeir way. people outSidE The pUbLiShing inDustry are ofteN aMazed at how
MuCh mOney thESE companiEs gave away to shareholderS As dividEndS and fOr hoW
long, despIte It beinG clEAr to evEryone Else iN tHe wORLd thaT THeY shOuLd
have been KEEpiNg the MoNey iN the banK.

------
cagenut
They have a pHRasE for this in the NewSpapER InDusTRy, "REplAcINg pRINt
dollars with diGital dimes".

if YOu'Re interestED in A lOt more fActs & figUres pLUs a grapH this post Has
them: [htTp://NewsOSAur.Blogspot.coM/
 them
have been to innovat e.

I thin k App le' s w il ling ness  to cannibalis e  isone reason they're sosucce ss f ul
- fo r exa mple, w h en t heiP od  Mi ni wa s a v ery  succes sful produ ct,  t hey stoppeds el ling it an d r eplaced it w ith  the M in i.M ore i ndu strie s need to lea rn from
t he m  (espe c ially t h e  m ovie  industry...)

~~ ~ 
t s tegart
Compani es are  u n wi l l ing  to  do it bec au se so m etimesi tm e a nsj ettisoning
pe ople, which ishard t odo. Its di fficu lt see ing peoplewhohave been  withy ou for3 0 years  becom e o bso lete ,  a nd  yo uh ave to  te l l t hem, "so rr y,  butyou' r e n o us e t o us  anym ore." Sometim esyouw ant  to t ry an d ma ke  theold wa y
wor k,  or just placeyour  head inthe  s and  a nd le t  the w hol e s hip godown
to g eth er . ~~ ~
ceejayoz
> Compa ni e s  a re unwil ling t o  d oi t becaus esom etim e s  it m eans je ttisonin g
> pe o pl e,  whichis  hardto  do .
The n e wspa per in dustry h as be e n quite happyt o do this. Is ur v i ve d  sev era l
rounds of  lay o ffs(plu s  f url o ughsand a  w a ge freeze) at Gannett.  ( Meanwh ile,the CEO got a  $30M+ ret i r e ment bon us.. . )The problem is , the y've mostl y  been do ing i t _inste ad_ of ad j u sting to  th e
i nfo rma t i on  era, rathert h an _ in  conjuc tio n with_  ad jus tin g.
~ ~~
tstega rt
Agree d.  A no th erconsi d erationis  th at  ma ny ne w spaper s suf ferfr om anoutdate d 
o w n ersh ip  s truc tur e.  I'mnots ure  aboutGannet, b utI  kno wso me of t he others,
li ke  Tribune b ef ore  2007a n d NYT ha d a problem. They weres tartedbyfamou s
bu sinessmen  or  famil ies that t hen cr eated  a  st r u cture t okee pthe holdin g s 
wi thinth e fa mily. T he problem with th i s i s that theirdes cend a n ts  ow n ed the 
t r ust s that run the co mpany andwe r eunwillingt o f or go thedividen ds th a t
cametheir way . Peopleou tsid e the  publishin g indust ry are of t en am a ze d athow 
muchmo ney  thes e comp a nie s gav e away  t o shar ehold er s as div idends and for how
long , desp ite i t b eing clea r t o  ev eryone el se i n the worl d t hat  they  sh o uld
h aveb ee n k e eping  the money int he  ba n k .
------
cag e n u t
T hey h ave a phra se f or this in the ne w spaper industr y, " r e pla cin g  pri nt 
dollars withdig it a l  dimes". 
If you're i ntereste di n a l ot mor e fact s & fig u r es plus a  gra phthis post  ha st hem: [h tt p: / /newso saur .b logspo t.com/ 
 them
have_been to_innovate.

I think Apple's willingness_to cannibalise_is_one reason_they're_so successful
- for_example, when the_iPod Mini was a_very successful product,_they_stopped
selling it and replaced it with the Mini. More industries need to learn from
them_(especially_the movie_industry...)

~~~
tstegart
Companies_are_unwilling to do it because_sometimes it means jettisoning
people, which_is hard_to do. Its difficult seeing people who have_been_with
you for 30_years become obsolete, and you have to tell them,_"sorry, but
you're no use to us_anymore." Sometimes you_want_to_try and make the_old way
work, or just place your_head in the sand and let_the whole ship go down
together.

~~~
ceejayoz
> Companies are_unwilling to do it because sometimes_it means jettisoning
> people, which_is hard_to do.

The newspaper industry has_been quite happy_to do_this. I survived_several
rounds of layoffs (plus furloughs and_a wage freeze)_at Gannett. (Meanwhile,
the CEO got a_$30M+_retirement bonus...)

The problem_is,_they've_mostly been_doing it _instead__of_adjusting to_the
information_era, rather than _in conjuction with__adjusting.

~~~
tstegart
Agreed._Another consideration is that many newspapers suffer_from an outdated
ownership structure._I'm_not sure about Gannet,_but I know some of_the others,
like Tribune before 2007 and_NYT had_a problem._They were started by famous
businessmen or families that then created a_structure to keep the holdings
within the_family. The problem with_this is_that_their descendants owned_the
trusts_that run_the company and were unwilling to forgo_the dividends_that
came their way. People outside the_publishing industry are often_amazed_at how
much money these companies gave_away to shareholders as dividends and_for how
long, despite it being_clear_to_everyone else in the world_that they should
have been keeping the_money in the_bank.

------
cagenut
They have a phrase for this in_the_newspaper industry, "replacing print
dollars with digital_dimes".

If_you're interested in a lot more_facts_&_figures plus a graph this_post has
them: [http://newsosaur.blogspot.com/