Time Inc.'s Ann Moore on Restructuring: ‘It Was Looking Like 1931’

Time Inc. CEO Ann Moore began this morning’s ABC Circulation Conference keynote at New York City’s Waldorf-Astoria by scrapping her original speech. “Given the news of Time Inc.’s latest reorganization, and specifically since I even made the China Daily News, I’ve changed my remarks for this morning,” she said.

Moore attempted to “walk attendees through Time Inc.’s changes and why,” highlighting what she’s learned from both the digital age and greatest economic depression of her career.

“By this October it was looking like 1931,” she said. “[Time Inc.] has never had so many advertising clients in trouble at the same time. The declines are stunning.” Moore added that she didn’t care if it technically isn’t a recession. “It is one for us.”

“We really believed we could make the 2008 goals,” Moore continued. “Our biggest and oldest brands had double-digit growth in 2007.”

Recession, Not Digital, Spurred Reorg

Moore said that Time Inc.’s decision to reorganize had “nothing to do with digital and one hundred percent to do with the recession.” The reasons for Time Inc.’s reorganization, Moore said, included centralization for faster decision making; collaboration and sharing across titles; simplification to eliminate all work that doesn’t add value to Time Inc.’s editorial department or client services (“you can always add them back,” she said of cut positions); alignment of goals to reduce costs and grow revenues; and innovation, citing the company’s launch of Maghound and LIFE.com.

Moore did not say how many layoffs would be made as a result of the company’s restructuring, or whether or not another wave of layoffs was likely. She did not take questions after her speech, and exited the ballroom immediately following her keynote.

Moore urged publishers to “throw out your neat little five year plans and adopt a two-year one,” adding: “Time is better prepared now to offer more value and better solutions in the coming months, and looks forward to working with all of you.”

RELATED LINKS

Layoffs, Restructuring at Time Inc.

Post Comment / Discuss This Story - Info/Rules

Ann Moore

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 10/30/2008 - 14:00.

My question is why is Ann Moore still around at Time, Inc. The restructuring has nothing to do with future growth and everything to do with cutting costs. It basically says that Time, Inc., has no idea how to grow. If she tries to sell the magazines as a group to advertisers, then she is simply making them commodities and they will be purchased like commodities--based on price and not quality. Next look for a serious decline in the editorial quality.

Depressing

Submitted by Cecil on Fri, 10/31/2008 - 07:50.

I totally agree. And editorial quality has already been on the decline at Time Inc. Moore, Squires and Huey have destroyed that company, and Bewkes should be cutting from the very top. What a shock that the demise of quality journalism wasn't the result of totalitarian repression but instead the unchecked greed that's euphemistically known as free-market capitalism. In the interest of cutting costs to hit earnings targets, news bureaus are closed, reporters are laid off, difficult stories go unassigned, and a whole new generation of corporate scoundrels, robber barons, and tyrants will escape scrutiny. It's a disaster.

“you can always add them back”

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 10/31/2008 - 09:12.

That line right there reveals the cluelessness management has for building quality teams. The myopic elitism that assumes all employees are merely the sum of their replaceable parts.

EW RIP?

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 10/31/2008 - 11:19.

So when are they going to put Entertainment Weekly to rest?

You run a publishing company, then Judge

Submitted by Doug Shingleton on Fri, 10/31/2008 - 14:19.

Seems to me that these comments are from people who have never run broad array of titles, or had excessive expenses from individualized divisions that produce repetitive work. The truth is, no matter where you work or what you do, you are replaceable. Ina depressed economic environment, it will be the publishers’ ability to provide mass-market exposure that will garner the advertising dollars. IT will not be quality of product in WILL BE QUANTITY OF CONSUMER EXPOSURE that a brand receives that will dictate where that brand advertises. Ask your agency partners, they will agree.

You run a publishing company, the judge ...

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 11/03/2008 - 11:00.

Its not quite that simple. As the quality of the edit content diminishes ... so will consumer interest and loyalty. Quantity (reach) will erode, as will the value of the advertising.

Ann Moore is clueless

Submitted by Christopher on Mon, 11/03/2008 - 11:33.

I agree with the first comment...and as an ex-Time Inc employee who was fed the Ann Moore kool-aid, Ann Moore should have lost her job years ago. She was the so called "saviour" with her successful launches and online saavy and frankly i think she wasn't all she was pumped up to be. Since she's taken over how many people have lost their jobs...1,000? More? How many magazines have they dumped off to meet shareholders needs? 20? 30? Fine, just concentrate on your 'home run' brands like Time, People, SI. Someone name one new and unique integrated platform they've unveiled for clients recently? Lets see...People Man of the Year becomes Fan of the Year? Swimsuit issue becomes a show on TBS? Very inventive. If they actually had the leverage and wherewithall to think out of the box for a change instead of feeding agencies and clients the same old crap maybe they'd be in better position to whether the storm. Change comes from the top, and that means Moore has to go.

shortsighted

Submitted by chuck on Mon, 11/03/2008 - 19:12.

If Time had paid more attention to where advertising is going and where readers are going, it might have a better chance of surviving. Cutting costs doesn't mask the real problem of losing ad revenues. As newspapers have known, advertisers are going online and savvy publishers are re-thinking their web sites to retain and attract subscribers. Have you seen Time's Web site? Compare it to The Economist to get a sense of what works and what doesnt

Time staff reductions

Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 11/04/2008 - 11:04.

I attended the ABC seminar at the Waldorf and found it appalling that Ann Moore did not subject herself to Q&A. How uncomfortable, but that comes with the territory. With the reallignment, Ann Moore placed herself above all the brands that do well in a recession, the lifestyle categories. (eg InStyle) It doesn't take much to put yourself over categories in past history have done well in bad economic times. I wonder if trimming the salaries of Chief Executives: Ann Moore, Stephanie George by 10% and reducing overall staff salaries would have spared some positions? It seems if it were corporate wide, there would be more a spirit of being in the same boat then protecting a few chosen. But then in today's publishing world, there aren't many role models left.

Off with their heads!

Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 11/04/2008 - 16:53.

I love her comment (“you can always add them back,” she said of cut positions). How sensitive of her. Nice recoginition of the importance she places in her "people". What a jerk!

Like a dog chasing a tail...

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 11/10/2008 - 17:47.

How long before Time Inc pursues an "offshore" solution to its web properties? That is usually what happens when a CEO with a large digital presence is out of ideas. Oh and who else lost all respect for CNN when they added DL Hughley to the lineup? If that isn't a last resort to add new users to Time Inc's media properties, I don't know what is.

One Trick Ponies

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 11/12/2008 - 16:21.

Ann Moore is the new Jerry Levin at Time Warner. CEOs who rode one thing (In Levin's case, HBO, in Moore's, InStyle) to the top of the organization but have long since been tapped out when it comes to truly new ideas. Rather than move into the new publishing world in imaginative increments a decade ago, Levin looked for the flashy score ("I'll let AOL buy us without really consulting my top management--I know best.") Unfortunately, Moore doesn't even have the same talent around her but should that be surprising when she refers to people like they are as so many widgets--"positions" that "you can always add back." Levin began the destruction of the company and Moore apparently wants to stay around after 2010 to finish the job.