October
15
Paramount reduces slate; are Viacom layoffs next?
Rumors have run strong this week that Viacom plans to announce substantial layoffs. Company reps are mum on the topic, of course, but this announcement could lend some credence: Paramount Pictures announced today that it intends to reduce its slate to 20 films a year. The rationale? Why, "to more effectively compete in the changing marketplace and to realize the maximum financial benefit of the series of new operating efficiencies achieved by the studio." In other words, cutbacks. My guess is now that they've reduced production and created a second production president by moving Adam Goodman over from DreamWorks, they'll soon announce another cutback: "Brad Weston will continue as president of production for Paramount. Both Goodman and Weston will be supported by shared functions and both will work in tandem with their respective creative staffs on developing projects for Paramount as well as MTV Films and Nickelodeon Movies." [Variety]
Subscribe to this blog's feed
I remember when writing for Variety meant you had to have sources and facts and stuff like that.
I guess a Gawker rumor that's already been proven false (did'ya read the link? It says there will be a big layoff announcement 4:00 *yesterday*) is all it takes these days.
Posted by: Joejoe | October 15, 2008 at 04:46 PM
Hi, Joejoe. While I realize Gawker's hope of a 4 pm Tuesday tell-all was dashed, the post and its ? headline sticks to the facts. There *are* rumors about Viacom layoffs. In addition to Gawker, there's Portfolio.com (http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/daily-brief/2008/10/14/viacom-workers-brace-for-layoffs), Silicon Alley Insider (http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/10/rumor-viacom-layoffs-coming) and any number of suggestions stemming from the reporting of Redstone's massive stock sell-off. Then there's the slate cutback Paramount announced today. Fewer products suggests a reduced need for people to produce them, which would also suggest that two production presidents are too many.
Posted by: Dana Harris | October 15, 2008 at 05:33 PM
Dunno. I thinks Variety would not cite a blog with an anonymous source that had *already been debunked* as proof of anything other than the complete ignorance of that source.
A fabricated tip is not a rumor, even if it's typed into the internets.
Old fashioned, I know.
Posted by: Joejoe | October 15, 2008 at 08:52 PM