Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship The Media Your Rights Online

PC World Editor Returns, CEO Demoted 118

Posted by Zonk from the nice-guys-don't-have-to-finish-last dept.
k1980pc writes "In a nice twist to the recent discussion on Slashdot, PC World editor Harry McCracken has returned to the magazine. In turn, Colin Crawford has been removed as PC World's CEO, where 'he will be responsible for driving IDG's online strategy and initiatives in support of our web-centric business focus' ... safely out of the way of the magazine editors. McCracken was pleased to return to his position: 'I'm thrilled to be back with the PC World team. IDG is a company I've loved working for over the past 16 years, and one with a remarkable history of enabling editors to serve our customers--the millions of people who depend on our content online and in print.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

PC World Editor Returns, CEO Demoted More

PC World Editor Returns, CEO Demoted

Comments Filter:

  • yuupp... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mockylock ( 1087585 ) on Friday May 11, 2007 @11:23AM (#19083695) Homepage
    With a name like "McCracken" you can't go wrong.
  • ... if they'll run the ad for the new Editor in the classifieds in the back and if the other advertisers back there will complain about it forcing another resignation?

  • and the obvious question is... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DriveDog ( 822962 ) on Friday May 11, 2007 @11:25AM (#19083743)
    why wasn't Crawford removed from IDG's employ, period?

    • Re:and the obvious question is... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Volante3192 ( 953645 ) on Friday May 11, 2007 @11:38AM (#19083993)
      Cause he probably has one sickening golden parachute...like every other CEO at a big company. (Home Depot anyone?) Cheaper to throw him in a closet than fire him I wager.

      • Re:and the obvious question is... (Score:5, Informative)

        by PCM2 ( 4486 ) on Friday May 11, 2007 @03:46PM (#19088919) Homepage
        Colin Crawford no longer has a position directly overseeing the PC World/Macworld group. It's not a matter of a "golden parachute"; he has been moved into an executive role at IDG, the parent company of those publications -- which is where he came from in the first place.

        To explain, IDG is a very large publishing company with properties and subsidiaries all around the world. It also remains privately held, something which is often touted as an advantage, given how turbulent publishing can sometimes be. The philosophy of Pat McGovern, the founder of IDG, is to take a very decentralized approach. Each publication is its own business unit, under the larger umbrella of IDG. So when I worked at InfoWorld, for example, we had our own CEO and our own vice presidents (a ridiculous number of them, in fact) -- all of whom were ultimately responsible to the Big Execs at IDG, but whom were given a certain amount of autonomy to run the business as they saw fit. IDG requires that all business units report on their financials, obviously, and they all have to explain how they plan to meet various proscribed fiscal goals for each year/quarter. If the plan doesn't add up, IDG will recommend adjustments. But, pretty much, the IDG model recognizes that the market for each content topic is going to be different and its various business units need to have flexible enough models that they can succeed in their chosen niches. The only disadvantage of this model is that IDG business units sometimes can't collaborate with each other as well as they might wish to -- they don't really share resources, so they're often reluctant to invest in something that will benefit other books as much as their own.

        So, that said, Colin Crawford is no longer CEO of a business unit at IDG, but he remains an executive in the IDG umbrella organization. I understand his new title is executive vice president of online. Prior to becoming CEO of PC World/Macworld, I believe his title was senior vice president of online. So it sounds like he's kind of been given his old job back, with a little perfunctory upgrade in title.

        I say good riddance. The guy sounds like a real creep. But, to be charitable, firing him probably wouldn't be the right thing to do. In a position at IDG, he no longer has any direct influence over any IDG business units. He's not sitting next to anybody's editorial. And there's evidence to suggest that he really does understand the publishing business. For example, Crawford was the architect behind the cross-company merger of Macworld and MacUser ten years ago -- and though you might have preferred one or another before the merger, it probably saved both of them at a time when the Mac market wasn't quite as hot as it is now.

        • they all have to explain how they plan to meet various proscribed [google.com] fiscal goals . . .

          Reminds me of a mole investigation I heard of: Interviewers questioned intelligence staff: "Tell us, if you were going to betray your country, how would you do it?" The mole was the one who was speechless, then nervous and agitated. It was his first clue that they were on to him. </grammar nazi>

    • Re:and the obvious question is... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by badasscat ( 563442 ) <basscadet75@NOspAm.yahoo.com> on Friday May 11, 2007 @11:40AM (#19084037)
      why wasn't Crawford removed from IDG's employ, period?

      So your argument is that experienced, generally skilled employees should be fired after their first mistake?

      Glad you're not a boss at my company... you'd be boss of an empty building pretty quick.

      • Re:and the obvious question is... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by sqlrob ( 173498 ) on Friday May 11, 2007 @11:50AM (#19084189)
        If the first mistake was to destroy the company's reputation or do something take down every server, damn straight I'd expect an employee to be fired.

      • Glad you're not a boss at my company... you'd be boss of an empty building pretty quick.
        badasscat what are you still doing here? Didn't I fire you for not remembering my name shortly after I took over your dept? Anyway you are definitely fired now for daring to criticize a brilliant management strategy on Slashdot. And you're the last one so turn the lights off on your way out.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by LWATCDR ( 28044 )
        He is a CEO he gets the big bucks so mistakes are not tolerated.
        Besides he made more than one mistake.
        1. To suggest slanting reviews to favor advertisers.
        2. Not listening to his editors when they said that was a mistake.
        3. To not back down when an editor said he was going to resign if the policy was not changed.
        4. Not seeing the backlash if the reason for the editor resigning was made public.
        5. Not understanding about this thing called the Internet and blogs. If he had then he would know that it would be ma
      • Which is the proper breakdown of your name: "Bad Ass Cat" or "Bad As Scat"?
    • probably because having a disagreement with an employee doesn't constitute firing him. Its not like the CEO told McCracken to shove off, he told him to be nicer to the advertisers. This is still a buisness and though we might not like it as well as McCracken you have to see where the CEO is coming from. He sees the advertisers as what is keeping the magazine aflot without their money subscriptions would have to go up and you would loose readership because of cost increases. Lets face it as an advertiser

      • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

        by edittard ( 805475 )

        buisness ... you would loose readership ... colume ... we haven't hear of
        As you've demonstrated beyond doubt that you're a professional journalist I'll bow to your superior knowledge of the subject.
      • .

        Lets face it as an advertiser I don't want to be putting my ad beside a colume that just said my product was sub par.

        Then don't put out sub-par products and not expect someone to rip them to shreds!

    • Re:and the obvious question is... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by queenb**ch ( 446380 ) on Friday May 11, 2007 @11:57AM (#19084327) Homepage Journal
      I have to second this. It's not about removing someone for "making a mistake." It's about recognizing unscrupulous and unethical behavior and removing that type of person from a position of power and influence in your organization. Keeping him in an equally important and probably well paid spot sends a dangerous message to the rest of the staff at IDG. "You can sell out all you want. If you get busted the only thing you'll get is a new job title."

      I don't know about you, but I were running what I wanted to be a well respected publication, he'd have been gone so quick he'd have left a hole in the air in his office. Not just tastefully reassigned to another place with out any real punishment for his actions.

      2 cents,

      Queen B.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by SadGeekHermit ( 1077125 )
        Harsh, man...

        First of all, the guy tried to do something mildly shady with the intent of increasing ad revenue (which would have been good for the magazine's bottom line, and in line with his duty as CEO). My understanding is, he asked the editor to take it easy on favored advertisers. As sins go in this day and age, that's pretty mild. If you want to see something REALLY nasty, look at Enron or Halliburton. So the guy's not evil, and he tried to help out his magazine, which is his job.

        Second, he was probab

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Asic Eng ( 193332 )
          Third, really, what's the big deal anyway?

          The big deal is, that US society is now so morally bankrupt that we don't even worry about blatant unethical behaviour anymore. As long as lying and cheating results in someone profiting from it, it's not just fine and dandy - it's all but required! So if you ever take a job in which you somehow have to interact with the public you'd better get used to lying, cause if someone tries to force you into unethical behaviour, the public will be on his side. If somethin

          • It's not unethical behavior. The advertisers pay for the magazine just as much as you do. (Actually, they pay for it much more than you do). The magazine must balance the decreased value to readers against the increased value to advertisers in order to maximize profit. There are magazines that are purely reader funded and thus do not have multiple sources of income to balance between.
          • Take a breath and switch to decaf.

            All the guy did was kill a story about Apple (that was tongue in cheek anyway) and ask his editor in chief to be nice to the advertisers that actually fund the magazine.

            He didn't burn your peaceful peasant village. He didn't rape the fields or pillage your women. He didn't even salt your children, or sell your soil into slavery.

            Lighten up on the guy. He's not Hitler. He's not even the Soup Nazi. Chill.
            • Take a breath and switch to decaf.

              How very mature of you.

              ask his editor in chief to be nice to the advertisers that actually fund the magazine.

              I'm eagerly awaiting your your explanation how that could be ethical. Oh dang - you expected an argument from me explaining why lying an cheating is unethical, right?

              He didn't burn your peaceful peasant village.

              Neither did he burn yours - very lucky too, all the straw men would have gone up in flames...

              Lighten up on the guy.

              That's exactly what puz

              • > How very mature of you.

                Why, thank you!

                > I'm eagerly awaiting your your explanation how that could be ethical.
                > Oh dang - you expected an argument from me explaining why lying an cheating is unethical, right?

                No, I expected you to GET my POINT, which is that this guy didn't do anything worth grumbling about. Who cares? I mean, really. At least he's not shooting people.

                > Neither did he burn yours - very lucky too, all the straw men would have gone up in flames...

                How very mature of you!

                > That's
        • Your like of reasoning, unethical as it appears to me, isn't unusual. One result is that the news sources aren't trusted by anyone with any sense.

          Do you recall when, I think it was NBC, invented using the docudrama to cover the Tiananmen Square riots? Nobody noticed until some lip-readers wondered why the demonstraters were shouting in English. (Once suspicion had been aroused, however...) Now everybody uses them, though supposedly they aren't substituted for actual footage. I don't know. I stopped bo
          • Well, obviously, it's unethical. I wouldn't do it, even if the 'board told me to.

            My point is that what the guy did isn't all that evil given the current state of the country, and it's barely evil at ALL compared to all the other crazy evils that are going on all around us.

            The president in the white house, right this instant, not only started a war for no particularly good reason, he's been busy destroying the constitution, creating a Stasi-like secret police out of the NSA and CIA, ordering his minions to g
      • The CEO was just doing his job and there is nothing unethical about it. I would have done the same if I were him.

        His job was to bring in the most amount of money possible to his company from his customers. The customers are his advertisers. Most consumers like me have not read a pc magazine in many years thanks to slashdot and the internet because they are all biased.

        The village voice and other alternative magazines that are free for many metros that were owned by the Village Voice brand had a similiar situ

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Bloke down the pub ( 861787 )

          His job was to bring in the most amount of money possible to his company from his customers.

          For the benefit of a poor oik what clearly don't have a top-notch MBA like what you has, can you explain how driving the readership down by destroying the mag's credibility achieves that goal?

          The customers are his advertisers.

          The readers aren't? Even accepting your assertion, aren't advertising rates roughly proportional to the circulation/readership?

          • No most magazines make their money from advertisers. This is why my example of the village voice which is free. They pay the bills.

            If your the CEO you have 2 options:
            1.) Ban all advertisements and buy the units to review in secret which Consumer Reports does. The downside is price as you need a subscription that costs more than PC magazine to pay for this. Also you need a large reader base for this business model.

            2.) Be honest and let the reporters do their job. Now you have peripheral makers like *cough* D

            • Readers dont care about reliable reporting or credibility. Look at Fox news or CNN?

              Or better yet, look at the editor of PC world resigning causing in a reader backlash that results in the CEO being reassigned and the editor staying at his job. It seems to me that people do care about reliable reporting.

        • The village voice and other alternative magazines that are free for many metros that were owned by the Village Voice brand had a similiar situation. They fired 1/4 of their staff for being too harsh on their advertisers and hired more friendly music critic writters to increase revenue. Its just business as usual and another example is the TV industry. How many headline news stories do you hear bashing an advertiser? None.

          and does the music sound better or resonate better since the company hired lackeys to write articles to be nice to advertisers. i would think an advertiser would be more apt to hear the truth than to continue to shovel the same crap to us and call it sugar. Constructive critizism is the key to growth. If everytime microsoft put out an os and every magazine they advertized in say it was the best system in the world.... oh wait that does happen

    • Re:and the obvious question is... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by isdnip ( 49656 ) on Friday May 11, 2007 @12:00PM (#19084397)
      It's not clear what role he will really have. These "strategic" positions may be important, or they may be what we used to call "special projects". That was the term used at a certain large company I once worked for... when a manager was relieved of his duty. These senior-level guys don't get fired. It never happens. Their "special project" typically means being quietly invited to find a new job elsewhere.

  • Punishment (Score:3, Informative)

    by iansmith ( 444117 ) on Friday May 11, 2007 @11:26AM (#19083751) Homepage
    I'd rather see the former CEO be a former employee rather than just move him to another important position.

    But, at least they did something.

  • Score one for the good guys (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gyranthir ( 995837 ) on Friday May 11, 2007 @11:28AM (#19083801)
    Integrity on the Product Review space is hard to find at any time. I think PC World did a good thing to bring this guy back.
    • What does integrity have to do with this story? I don't really see what running lame "10 things we hate" or "10 things we love" articles has to do with journalistic integrity. If anything, it shows a lack of integrity to run vapid link-bait articles.
      • This guy quit over his boss telling him not to write what he feels are the truth about the products he's reviewing.

        They brought him back and demoted the guy that told him not to tell the truth.

        This is about censorship and journalistic integrity
        • What the fuck? What does this have to do with reviewing products? The "10 things we hate" article was not a product review. Journalistic integrity? the articles was a travesty not fit for publication. The fact that the editor wanted to run such crap, shows he has little journalistic integrity and should have been fired.

  • This seems staged (Score:5, Interesting)

    by macz ( 797860 ) on Friday May 11, 2007 @11:32AM (#19083887)
    If your magazine was suffering from the problem of "Review Inflation" that many outlets seem guilty of, what better way to recover integrity than by the old "Quit in a high profile way -> Get rehired -> Bad Guy Demoted" scenario. Especially since the CEO is still drawing a fat paycheck.
    • I was thinking the same thing. Who's to say that the editor won't still be required to give good reviews to paid advertisers?

  • Harry McCracken? (Score:5, Funny)

    by basic0 ( 182925 ) <mmccollow@yahooERDOS.ca minus math_god> on Friday May 11, 2007 @11:34AM (#19083907)
    You mean all these years I've been registering software and joining websites while unwittingly impersonating the editor of PC Magazine?
  • if yerlooking for a ton of great fluff, its time to get PC world.

    10 reasons we love/hate Apple/Microsoft?

    Holy mackrel. Why not "10 Dumbest things ever said by Dvorak" or "Top 10 Ryan Meader predicitions we wish would come true" or "10 Things to look for in a PC for your dog."

    wow.
    • Dvorak writes for PC Mag, not PC World.
      • So whats your point?
        He has still said far more than 10 dumb things and it would not hurt the public to be reminded of that fact regardless of who published them.

  • Good for him! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Rob T Firefly ( 844560 ) on Friday May 11, 2007 @11:36AM (#19083959) Homepage Journal
    While it's always heartwarming to see someone stand up for a principle like this in such a dramatic manner, it's even nicer to see it actually pay off for him in the end.

    I hope IDG gave him a sufficiently good deal to get him back, because it would have been very much worth it for any of their competition to snap him up and brag loudly about it.
    • What principle is he standing up for? Publishing awful fluff articles? I think that's one principle that should be taken out back and shot in the head.
  • Based on the article, it doesn't seem like the guy was demoted. I think he was "promoted out of the way."

    I have to figure out how to do that...
  • It's nice to see that, every once in a while, companies see the value of an honest opinion having *some* parity with the advertising dollar.

    maybe other will follow this positive example, from time to time.

  • This practice is alarmingly common (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SilentChris ( 452960 ) on Friday May 11, 2007 @11:54AM (#19084277) Homepage
    I posted this on the original story but it bears repeating...

    People act as if this is uncommon. I'm alarmed that people have reacted in this way.

    It's very common.

    I used to freelance for a large, well-known video game site (not hard to guess which -- there's only a couple). This was back when CD games were first introduced, and a lot of companies were experimenting by cramming as much video as they could onto a disk (with no respect to video quality, acting, and especially gameplay).

    Anyway, a company came out with something particularly wretched. Basically some "video game" where interacting involved pushing an arrow key on your keyboard every 10 minutes or so while actors hammed it up. I bluntly gave the game the lowest possible score and walked away.

    A few months later, I get an email from editor. The game's maker wasn't happy, and they were threatening to pull advertising from the online rag. Now, the editor didn't say "change the review". He just subtetly requested that another review "rereview it" to give a "counterpoint". That counterpoint would be provided by the editor himself.

    Needless to say I wasn't happy, but this was a burgeoning new online rag and I didn't have much say as a freelancer.

    However, ever notice when sites like GameSpot or IGN go soft on a review for a crappy game when that same company has front page splash rights (they cover the page in their company or game logo)? Now you know.

    • Re:This practice is alarmingly common (Score:5, Insightful)

      by clickclickdrone ( 964164 ) on Friday May 11, 2007 @12:02PM (#19084431)
      >It's very common.
      Thankfully, not everywhere. Every editor I've worked with (UK) has known exactly where advertising and Editorial meet i.e. they don't. Most eds won't talk to the advertising department period to ensure whatever they print is the truth and not biased by some compnay threatening to pull ad revenue.
      • Game "p/reviews" that are written by the PR or marketing team of the game developer. They are essentially sent to the gaming mags with the understanding that they are to be printed largely as is, in exchange of a sum of money or continued advertising. The reason this is worse? No editor can influence this. It's essentially an ad disguised as an independent opinion piece, and only controlled by PR/marketing people in the two companies.

        • Game "p/reviews" that are written by the PR or marketing team of the game developer. They are essentially sent to the gaming mags with the understanding that they are to be printed largely as is, in exchange of a sum of money or continued advertising. The reason this is worse? No editor can influence this. It's essentially an ad disguised as an independent opinion piece, and only controlled by PR/marketing people in the two companies.

          I don't know if you've ever worked in the industry, but much of what you s

      • Most eds won't talk to the advertising department period to ensure whatever they print is the truth
        I'm a developer. I, too, make it a point not to talk to either Testing, QA or System Administration. I can't accept even the merest hint of influence of these departments. They tried, but I stare them out of my cubicle.

    • However, ever notice when sites like GameSpot or IGN go soft on a review for a crappy game when that same company has front page splash rights (they cover the page in their company or game logo)? Now you know.

      It's not entirely about such political games. Companies know a top-notch game/movie/whatever will reap its own rewards through word of mouth and a "long tail."

      I used to work in the media sales dept (movies/books/etc.) of a fairly large company (several hundred million in annual revenue). Our general

  • Wow!!

    looks like there's hope for life on this rock after all.
  • Does this mean that the 10 Things We Hate About Apple is now officially unspiked? If not, his return means very little.
  • Bottom line: Those are two insipid, uninsightful, mediocre fluff stories. In addition to being hard on the eyes, they were also poorly researched and wrong. Both stories should have been killed for that reason. PC missed a chance to hire someone with integrity AND taste.
  • For those who want to read the contested article, it's here (printable version) [pcworld.com]. While I'm a little biased -- I have an iPod and I'd love to replace my PC with a Mac eventually -- most of the 10 reasons were pretty lame.

    Number 1 I totally agree with, though. Apple going after the rumor websites was an abuse of power. And the point about limited selection of Apple models echoes some complaints I've heard around here. But the others? "Overuse of 'iThingie' names," no "Blu-Ray," and "iPod won't play WMA

  • Open the floodgates for more crappy non-stories!

    Thanks for staking your journalistic integrity on such important stories as one lambasting the hockey puck mouse. Coming up next on PC World: "What's the deal with laundromats?!" "Have you ever noticed that..."

  • This isn't a censorship issue (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DECS ( 891519 ) on Friday May 11, 2007 @02:33PM (#19087651) Homepage Journal
    McCracken had an editorial debate with his manager. The debate was over a pile of made-for-Digg crap stories that were complete rubbish, not over some withholding of investigative journalism due to outside advertiser pressure.

    All it proves is that IDG is desperate, McCracken really enjoys publishing "fluff" (as one staffer descirbed the articles in question), and that IDG's fortunes don't come from breaking news or informing readers but rather in manipulating Digg throngs with its sensationalist headlines slapped on non-content garbage. What a great business plan to pursue. I'm sure that will reward the company richly in the future.

    Great job McCracken, you now have the capacity to make IDG's magazines worse. Any cred you deserved for walking out has now vaporized.

    Harry McCracken and the Apple Censorship Myth [roughlydrafted.com]
  • This way we can see more flamebait traffic generating fluff than ever.

    Up next "Ten Things We Hate About Thumb Drives", and "Twenty Ways To Clean Up Those Unused Desktop Icons That Erratically and Mysteriously Appear Without Warning"."

  • What kind of femtocortex would depend on PC World for anything?
    Can you say "overblown sense of self-importance"?
    Maybe it is a reasonable resource, (haven't read the rag in years, even so it was far outclassed by BYTE) I would not recommned its use as the sole basis for any PC decision.

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Close