Vaughan Spa

Rogers to cut 200 media and admin jobs

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,970
2,893
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
http://www.thestar.com/business/2016/01/25/rogers-to-cut-200-media-and-admin-jobs.html


It was another bleak day for Canadian news outlets on Monday as Rogers Media moved to trim its workforce by 4 per cent — or 200 jobs.
Rogers Media says the cuts, which will impact jobs in television, radio, publishing and administration, are part of efficiency efforts at Rogers Communications, one of Canada's largest telecom companies.

A memo to Rogers Media staff says the job cuts will begin in February and will conclude as soon as possible.
“Today's announcement impacts all areas within Rogers Media, except the Toronto Blue Jays,” said Andrea Goldstein, the company's senior director of communications, in an email.

Rogers Media operates 24 TV stations, 52 radio stations, 57 publications and 93 websites.

Goldstein said “it is too early” to identify specifics about which programs or publications will be affected. She said changes will happen at all levels in the company across the country.

The latest layoffs come after the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission was told that half of the country's local TV stations could be off the air by 2020 without a boost in revenues to pay for local programming.

The warning comes in a study submitted to the federal broadcast watchdog as it kicked off hearings into local and community television programming in Gatineau on Monday.

Howard Law, director of the media sector for Unifor — a union representing some Rogers Media employees — said the news of yet more layoffs in the media business is foreboding.

“We're going down the path where journalism and the coverage of news that's important for a functioning democracy is at existential risk in this country,” he said from Ottawa.

Rogers did not announce plans to offer employee buyouts, but if workers come forward requesting a package “we will evaluate at that time,” Goldstein said.

The company also recently announced a $5 price hike to monthly share-everything cellphone contracts for new customers and $10-$15 increases in monthly costs for new customers who bring their own devices.

“We have made these adjustments to reflect ongoing network and service investments and current market conditions impacting our industry,” said Aaron Lazarus, a company spokesman.
Rogers releases its fourth-quarter results on Wednesday.

In October, the company reported a big increase in third-quarter profits. Rogers reported that profits grew nearly 40 per cent to $464 million from $332 million in the three months ended Sept. 30.

Unifor is lobbying the CRTC to require cable companies that own broadcasters, like Rogers, to spend cable company profits on programming.

Rogers’ cuts come amid recent layoffs at other Canadian media organizations.

Bell Media cut 380 jobs from its operations, production and editorial staff in November, while The Guelph Mercury daily newspaper announced Monday it will stop publishing its print editions this week, impacting 23 full-time and three part-time jobs.

Earlier this month, Postmedia announced about 90 job cuts as it moved to merge newsrooms in four cities to help the company trim $80 million in expenses by mid-2017. Torstar, the company that owns Canada’s largest circulation newspaper, the Toronto Star, announced in January that it was laying off more than 300 production and editorial employees.
—With files from Raju Mudhar
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,261
22,061
113
CBC had an article out that said that the CRTC thinks that we will probably lose 50% of our local tv stations by 2020.

First casualties was the music industry, its been changed for the worse by the internet.
Second casualty is the newspaper industry, barely hanging on right now.
Third is the publishing industry, there are almost no book stores now, just like there are almost no cd stores, just boutique vinyl.
Fourth seems to be the tv industry.
 

Worf

Active member
Sep 26, 2001
1,891
19
38
In a house somewhere
While I agree that this is mostly bad news, remember that a LOT of our TV stations were created just to fill the space in our remotes. There are a lot of crappy TV stations/channels out there. There are also a lot of crappy TV shows. How many of us choose packages just to get one channel?
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,011
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
While I agree that this is mostly bad news, remember that a LOT of our TV stations were created just to fill the space in our remotes. There are a lot of crappy TV stations/channels out there. There are also a lot of crappy TV shows. How many of us choose packages just to get one channel?
This is true. And TV was higher quality back in the days when there were fewer channels.

Programming on Netflix, Amazon Prime, HBO is higher quality because they concentrate viewers around a few top shows. Everybody with Netflix watched House of Cards. Everybody with HBO watched Game of Thrones. It's like the old days when you had NBC/ABC/CBS and everybody watched them.
 

Occasionally

Active member
May 22, 2011
2,928
7
38
This is true. And TV was higher quality back in the days when there were fewer channels.

Programming on Netflix, Amazon Prime, HBO is higher quality because they concentrate viewers around a few top shows. Everybody with Netflix watched House of Cards. Everybody with HBO watched Game of Thrones. It's like the old days when you had NBC/ABC/CBS and everybody watched them.
I don't watch much TV anymore aside from sports, but when I had HBO 10 years ago, the shows were exponentially better than anything on network TV. And HBO doesn't even have (as a company) the network TV bucks.

Imagine what HBO could do if they had the finances of the big networks.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,261
22,061
113
I don't watch much TV anymore aside from sports, but when I had HBO 10 years ago, the shows were exponentially better than anything on network TV. And HBO doesn't even have (as a company) the network TV bucks.

Imagine what HBO could do if they had the finances of the big networks.
Most Canadian tv stations do not provide much content other then local news.
That's going to be their downfall.

Now that Netflix, Shomi, Amazon et al are available as cheaper content providers then cable, and starting to deliver their own quality content, those local stations are finding themselves just delivering otherwise available content through a more expensive medium, cable. If digital antennae take off as a viable alternative, which would also hasten the death of cable, then those local stations may still maintain some viewers. But just like the declining number of people who read a newspaper on dead trees, the number of people who will fund local stations through cable is just going to keep going down.
 

explorerzip

Well-known member
Jul 27, 2006
8,127
1,295
113
This is true. And TV was higher quality back in the days when there were fewer channels.

Programming on Netflix, Amazon Prime, HBO is higher quality because they concentrate viewers around a few top shows. Everybody with Netflix watched House of Cards. Everybody with HBO watched Game of Thrones. It's like the old days when you had NBC/ABC/CBS and everybody watched them.
NetFlix collects data on what its customers are watching. That's the reason why they green lit 2 seasons of House of Cards right from the get go. They knew with reasonable certainly that it was going to be a hit before it came out. Traditional networks don't have rich data like this, which is why so many series get cancelled after only a few seasons or even 1 episode. Obviously, that business model is badly broken. I remember when cable and telecom companies were touting the 500 channel universe. Now that we have it, the ton of extra channels are sinking those same companies. And that's why we have so many reality shows.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,261
22,061
113
NetFlix collects data on what its customers are watching. That's the reason why they green lit 2 seasons of House of Cards right from the get go. They knew with reasonable certainly that it was going to be a hit before it came out. Traditional networks don't have rich data like this, which is why so many series get cancelled after only a few seasons or even 1 episode. Obviously, that business model is badly broken. I remember when cable and telecom companies were touting the 500 channel universe. Now that we have it, the ton of extra channels are sinking those same companies. And that's why we have so many reality shows.
Exactly, every time I travel and click around some form of the 500 channel universe it seems 200 channels of cooking/house shows, 200 channels of bad repeats, 50 channels of news....
Takes forever to confirm there's nothing I want to watch.

The new model is better as a viewer, but its going to mean a lot fewer jobs.
 

Born2Star

Active member
Dec 2, 2004
760
83
28
4% across the board, so they're not closing down dept but likely just letting go 4% of the lowest performers... if so then sounds like the right thing to do.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,261
22,061
113

james t kirk

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2001
24,045
3,915
113
This is true. And TV was higher quality back in the days when there were fewer channels.

Programming on Netflix, Amazon Prime, HBO is higher quality because they concentrate viewers around a few top shows. Everybody with Netflix watched House of Cards. Everybody with HBO watched Game of Thrones. It's like the old days when you had NBC/ABC/CBS and everybody watched them.

I only watch TMN / HBO, Netflix, an the news in that order.

I couldn't tell you a single show on any of th major networks, not one. 5 years ago, I could have told you several.

The specialty channels I used to love, like Discovery,and Learning, and especially History and A&E are all now complete and utter bullshit with nothing but red neck American garbage, so called reality TV 24 /7. It's unwatchable.
 

black booty lover

Well-known member
Oct 21, 2007
9,831
1,754
113
At times they are there own worst enemy. Back in the day, there was one channel/network that was a 24 hour sports channel. That was TSN, then sportsnet came along, then the score. Then rogers purchased the score and tunred into sportsnet 360. Then sportsnet launched 4 more channels, and TSN countered by launching 4 more as well. So what do you have??? 11 sports channels, 6 owned by rogers on its own. How many sports channels do they think there is a market for??

You can chalk some of it up to that, no doubt.
 

just4

Active member
Mar 23, 2011
175
43
28
Ironically most local stations are owned by rogers and bell who benefit from cord cutters who are moving to streaming. However they complain locals are losing money but in reality the funds are simply shifting within their company. The CRTC should make local news a requirement for a broadcast license like it was before. Rogers and Bell want control of media and they don't want to invest in it or having any rules. I loved when they wanted to shut down their transmitters but still keep the airwaves for their use. I suggest making it easier to get an over the air broadcast license so it allows better competition. Tax payers already pay over a billion to these private broadcasters to produce shows. Everyone knows CBC gets tax funds but so do private broadcasters and now they want more. Allow real competition over the air and the public will have a choice of free over the air or paying with rogers or bell. :thumb:
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts