It’s not sufficient to say the future opportunities will not be there because someone will always argue against that, as is happening here.

Designers have to renounce what they have done up to now. All the facts — circulation numbers, credibility of the newspapers, intelligence level of the newsrooms — are against them. The taboos and the warped priorities have not worked. The chanting and the repeating of various buzzphrases — “simple and clean”; “navigating the page”; “I’d buy that front page”; and on and on — have fooled a lot of dimwitted editors. But the approach has been a colossal failure.

It might be too late to undo most of the damage. But wouldn’t it feel a lot better to stop the delusion and to take hold of reality? Readers are not going to stream to the paper because of its design. Admit it; take a reality check; and stop holding an entire industry hostage to a bunch of poorly conceived, foolish whims that have failed year after year.

“Keep on keepin’ on” is a tall order some days anymore, but I’m totally with you, Claira. Personally, I’d rather devote my energy to trying to mold something I love into something useful than spend it looking for (then doing) a job just because it’s there (which about all I ever find on the non-journalism job sites).

That said, I don’t begrudge anyone choosing to leave this business. I even understand and respect it. And hopefully, they, too, understand and respect the choice that me (and others like me) make to stay behind and continue fighting the good fight.

I will, however, put the people who say newspaper design is out in the same category as the ones at IBM who thought a “personal computer” was a ridiculous concept, and the ones at HP in Palo Alto who thought a “mouse” would never catch on.

You can run and give up, but I’d rather keep the art ALIVE.

It’s all about money, and newspaper editors see the nuance, individuality and relevance of design as basically irrelevant.

Yes, you will find outlets for design. Community newspapers, where the pay sucks, still need designers. But make no mistake: The visual heyday in newspaper design is over.

The bottom line is that my advice, as appalling to you as it sounds, stands. Get out. Do it now.

Being from the South, wedding pages will never disappear regardless of a paper’s website. Obituaries too will not totally disappear either. Yes, these are not pages that require a lot of design, but trust me, they are staples in the paper industry.

News design is not just about papers either. Magazine design is still needed, and a great skill to have. To me, that is a news designer’s dream. I, myself, do possess the skills of a copy editor, photographer, and website builder, but my passion is design. Since leaving Gannett, I have been presented with opportunities to design print materials nationawide, some volunteer, some paid.

The bottom line is this, if you want to design, you will find the outlets. Gannett may think they are starting a trend, but I can tell you first hand, it is not in any way a smooth or even good transition. My prediction stands, they will be going down for this.

Gannett’s centralization concept is repulsive, and the logic is even more so. However, you can bet other newspaper chains will copy and implement it to save money, which is what this is all about.

The individuality, nuance and relevance of design are dead. Don’t allow yourself to become a statistic.

Prior to resigning, I did have the chance to attend a “Town Hall Meeting” with the Gannett Corporate “Team” and asked the questions stated in the “Open Letter” as well as some of the Q & A questions. The answers I received included, “Yes we will open up these jobs to the people being laid off.”; “We understand the differences from region to region, and they will be taken into consideration.”

One thing they didn’t answer was regarding the failed attempt they made to have all of their advertising “centrally out sourced” to India. That was a disaster. The ads were substandard and, in most cases, had to be rebuilt locally. The centralized “toning” of photos is also problematic due to the vast differences in press around the country.

Also no discussion has come up about the centralization of printing. For example, almost all of the Mississippi papers are printed on ONE press. What if it breaks???

I am curious as to who came up with this “centralization” concept. PEOPLE DON’T LIKE CHANGE. New technology SCARES the heck out of Newsroom employees. I also know that many sites don’t have new enough computers to run VISTA let alone CCI.

I predict that Gannett’s attempt to “standardize” newspapers will either kill the industry as a whole, or distroy itself. I think the communities, towns, and cities should ban together and BUY their papers back! Take control away from “BIG BROTHER GANNETT” and put it back into the hands of the people who actually READ it.

While it’s possible that editors will still write all the headlines in CCi, the interaction of designers and editors will be different. After all, these remote designers won’t truly be accountable to local editors. At some level, the centralized designers will have two masters — their local bosses and the remote editors — and who comes first in this situation? The remote editors don’t sign the checks.

Maybe Gannett could train a Speak and Spell to say things like ‘top-notch journalism,’ ‘platform’ and ‘community.’ Then they could eliminate her position. She probably rakes in the salary of 5 entry-level designers.

What about those Gannett advertising hubs in India? How are they promoting local businesses?

How can Gannett say it is serving communities while they are outsourcing jobs, incomes and personality of the people who actually live in them? Two words: Blood Money.