That has to be unnerving, but I can at least offer a little bit of comfort: The worst-case scenario the employees would be facing had they been purchased by private equity firm ZelnickMedia, which was also bidding for the publication.

The short version: Almost everybody gets fired.

Here’s the longer version of the plan, provided to me by a person familiar with ZelnickMedia’s bid. It sounds like a plausible idea for a PE group that specializes in turning around distressed assets–and a chilling one for anybody who draws a paycheck at BusinessWeek:

• Wind down BusinessWeek’s print business “as profitably as possible”–the company would have to honor existing subscriptions and could still sell ads in the magazine. But the focus would be on building up BusinessWeek’s Web site, which has a decent-sized footprint, though not a huge one.
• Dump almost all of the company’s newsgathering staff and outsource most of that work to Thomson Reuters (TRI).
• Employ a small handful of editorial employees–perhaps 20, down from the 200-plus who are there now. Some of them would run a Huffington Post-style aggregation site that produces no original content, and some more expensive hires would produce a smattering of high-quality reporting and writing designed to burnish/sustain the BusinessWeek brand. “Just to give it uniqueness and sizzle,” my source tells me.
• Dump most of the existing business side, as well, but overhaul and bulk up the sales force.

The insult-to-injury kicker: Under ZelnickMedia’s proposal, the buyer wouldn’t pay a dime for the publication it intended to rebuild. Instead, McGraw-Hill would pay the fund to take the publication off its hands. If that sounds implausible, consider that McGraw-Hill just announced that it will save up to $25 million next year by not owning the title.

Given the above terms, it’s easy enough to see why McGraw-Hill ended up going with Bloomberg. For starters, the winning bidder actually paid cash for the magazine, and McGraw-Hill will end up netting a $5.9 million gain, after taxes, on the deal.

Also important: McGraw-Hill won’t have to anguish as it watches one of its flagship properties get dismantled.

So what will happen to BusinessWeek now that Bloomberg owns it? Nothing nearly so drastic, at least in the short term. For now, Bloomberg is talking about bulking up the title, not shredding it, so that’s a good sign for both employees and readers.

Alas, Bloomberg can’t take on all of the magazine employees looking for jobs, and that pool is only going to get bigger.

Forbes slashed deep into its staff this week, and next week Time Warner’s (TWX) Time Inc. will lay out some of its layoff goals. I’ve heard Time Inc. employees refer to layoff plans as “tree-trimming” or “surgical,” but I think the trimming will feel much blunter to the folks who lose their jobs. The publisher’s cost-cutting plans include hundreds of layoffs–something likely similar to the cuts the publisher went through last year, I’m told.

The New York Post’s Keith Kelly reports today that Time’s News and Finance unit, which includes Time, Fortune and Sports Illustrated, will be particularly hard hit, and I’ve confirmed that myself.

UPDATE: No surprise here: BusinessWeek President Keith Fox is stepping down. Mild surprise: He’s staying on at McGraw-Hill. Here’s his memo:

When we announced that McGraw-Hill was exploring strategic options for BusinessWeek, I promised to communicate with you as openly and often as I could. In this spirit, I wanted each of you to know that I will be remaining with McGraw-Hill after the deal with Bloomberg is closed. I will continue to play a role in the integration post-close and plan to take on a new role at McGraw-Hill in 2010.

During this process, our collective goal was to find the best buyer for BusinessWeek. I am proud that I played a role in ensuring that BusinessWeek has a new home at Bloomberg, where it will thrive under the leadership of Norman Pearlstine. I am committed to the transition and helping in any way that I can.

It’s been a privilege to be the President of BusinessWeek. I thank Terry McGraw for his confidence and trust in me and Glenn Goldberg for his support, direction, clarity, and sense of humor. I’ve also been a member of an amazing team which has navigated the transformation of the media environment with agility, focus, passion, and integrity.

The team–Steve Adler, Jessica Sibley, Tania Secor, Linda Brennan, Roger Neal, and Carl Fischer–is the best in the industry. Like BusinessWeek, they have bright futures ahead of them. I will miss the daily interaction, but I am wiser (and a little grayer) because of their collaborative spirit and desire to make BusinessWeek the global leader in business that it is today.

I also have a special thanks to Patricia Hipplewith, my assistant, who juggled my calendar, protected me from solicitors, and kept me on schedule and well fed! She is the personification of commitment and integrity.

I am humbled by BusinessWeek’s 80-year history. Thank you for allowing me to play a small part in it.

Keith

That’s the high end of the range Bloomberg will be paying for BusinessWeek, reports BusinessWeek, which has done an excellent job of covering its sale. One important note to make about the price: Those liabilities could total up to $32 million, although it’s not clear whether Bloomberg will assume all of them.

Can’t call this one a surprise, as Bloomberg has reportedly been the lead bidder for some time now. BusinessWeek employees spent most of the day waiting for an announcement to that effect, and finally heard one, via Bloomberg’s wire service, shortly after 5 pm EDT.

Shortly after, BusinessWeek Editor Stephen J. Adler gathered his troops for an informal meeting to discuss the news and to discuss some blocking and tackling: No news on rumored (and expected) layoffs. But he did tell staffers that those who are cut after the deal closes later this year will receive the same severance package they would have gotten if they were still employed by McGraw-Hill (MHP), the magazine’s parent company.

There most certainly will be cuts: McGraw-Hill is selling the 80-year-old magazine because it’s a money pit that was losing between $20 million and $40 million a year, depending on your accounting. And the publisher’s bankers promoted a layoff plan as part of the sales process.

What exactly deep-pocketed Bloomberg intends to do with the publication, however, is unclear. The company, which makes its money renting its namesake terminals to Wall Street traders, is thought to be running its magazine and TV news operations at a loss as it tries to grab a footprint in consumer media. It may ultimately be willing to run BusinessWeek at a loss for a while, as well.

And now a tiny bit of context: At the beginning of this year, there were four major business magazines. Now one, Condé Nast’s Portfolio, has been shut down and another sold at a fire-sale price. Meanwhile, my former colleagues at Forbes expect to hear about yet another restructuring round in the near future. And while Time Warner (TWX) CEO Jeff Bewkes was careful to list Fortune magazine among the core assets at his company’s Time Inc. unit at an industry event today, that can’t assure the queasy souls who work there.

Here’s the memo to BusinessWeek staff from the magazine’s BusinessWeek publisher, Keith Fox:

All,

Moments ago, McGraw-Hill announced that Bloomberg L.P. has agreed to acquire BusinessWeek. This is exciting news on many levels. Joining forces with another of the world’s leading news organizations enhances BusinessWeek’s ability to further serve our global audience and our valued customers. And Bloomberg will gain a powerful brand with a history of editorial excellence and strong reach among business professionals.

While the ink is barely dry and the long-term plans are being worked out, we do know that Bloomberg is committed to and values our brand, our editorial integrity, and our ability to drive advertising, circulation, and new digital revenue.

BusinessWeek will strengthen Bloomberg’s online, television and mobile products and creates an opportunity for Bloomberg News to reach decision makers in the c-suite. Online, BusinessWeek.com and Bloomberg.com will have more unique visitors than any non-portal business and financial site. In addition, Bloomberg expects to build television content around the powerful BusinessWeek brand and our world-class journalists.

I am tremendously proud of the work all of you have done in the past few months. Despite the uncertainty, we have continued to produce first-class products for our readers and advertisers, and I want to thank you deeply for your efforts. I also want to thank Steve Adler, Jessica Sibley, Tania Secor, Roger Neal, and Linda Brennan, for their extraordinary ability to personify the best of BusinessWeek during the deal process while leading their respective organizations.

I know that while this announcement answers some of the questions you’ve been asking over the past few months, it raises others. The sale is expected to close by the end of the year and we will be working on transition plans in the coming weeks. I can tell you that all BusinessWeek staffers will remain employees of The McGraw-Hill Companies until the transaction closes, and that it will be business as usual–producing the magazine and the website, and serving our advertisers–through the close. We will give you more details when we can.

We’ll be holding a town hall meeting later today at 5:45 EST, after which a Q&A will be provided to all employees; you will receive more details shortly. A call for the Asia teams will be scheduled shortly.

Again, I want to thank you all for your professionalism and dedication during a challenging time. I look forward to working with you on the promising next chapter in BusinessWeek’s history.

Keith

I’ve heard that Arango is leaving for six months and that the Times doesn’t have plans to replace him while he’s out. But media editor Bruce Headlam, via email, says the paper is still figuring all of that out:

A lot is still up in the air–When Tim might go and for how long. We do know that he will be coming back, however, and he’s a huge asset to our group so we’re looking for creative solutions in the meantime.

Arango came to the Times after stints at Time Warner’s (TWX) Fortune and News Corp.’s (NWS) New York Post. I’ve asked him for comment–for instance, I’d love to know why he wants to trade midtown office suites for the desert–and will report back if I hear from him.

And to cap off the meta navel-gazing, I should report here that I like my gig very much and have no intention of leaving.

Oh. And don’t bother counting your home in that total. FT Wealth is for people of real means. The kind who are still “liquid,” as Gordon Gekko put it.

In other words, the kind of people who might want to read about “whisky as an alternative investment, Muslim philanthropy, how the downturn is affecting the lifestyle of America’s rich kids and expensive sports.” All of which are on tap for the supplement’s October issue, which will reach 100,000 of the newspaper’s U.S. subscribers.

If you’re a down-on-your-heels skeptic with no imagination, you could note that the kinds of advertisers that are supposed to keep a supplement like that afloat have had a rough go of it in the recent past. So have high-end financial magazines (Portfolio, RIP).

Big-thinking optimist? Then you’ll note that Fortune magazine launched in the Great Depression, and that ended up working out pretty well for the company that’s now Time Warner (TWX).

While Squires solves that riddle, he’ll leave his day job as head of the “news business unit” (Time, Fortune, Money, etc.). In his place will be… Moore, who is already running the company’s style group.

I chatted briefly via email with Squires, who is good-natured about the assignment. But I have to take issue with him (and everyone else who uses this example) re iTunes. Apple (AAPL) didn’t prove that people are willing to pay for content online–we’d already seen that (at The Wall Street Journal, among other examples). Apple proved that people are willing to pay for portions–that would be songs–of products that were previously only sold in bundles–that would be CDs.

You can debate whether this was terrible for the music industry or simply the least-bad option. But I don’t think it makes sense to compare the experience of the music industry with news and other Web content that people aren’t used to paying for in any form.

Here’s my Q&A with Squires:

MediaMemo: I’m struck by Ann’s “genie” reference–are we meant to take that in a tongue-in-cheek way, or do you folks really think you can put the free-content genie back in the bottle? Or am I misinterpreting that?

John Squires: We’re not unrealistic about the challenge, but iTunes showed people will pay for something attractively packaged and fairly priced that they once got for free….We also wanted to get your attention. So I guess we’re genies.

MM: Do you imagine that Time Inc. will be taking content that’s currently available for free online and putting it behind a pay wall? Or are you more focused on creating new products you can charge for?

JS: This is part of what we’ll be testing. Certainly some online content will remain free because we’re eager to keep our large online audiences (over 26 million Nielsen uniques) and successful advertising model. Some other online content may be subscription-based. And the content we create for mobile readers will be a completely new experience, with different design and functions that we think consumers will want to pay for.

MM: Haven’t heard Time Inc.’s voice in the “Google isn’t playing fair” chorus. How much, if any, energy are you spending on getting the search engine to help you/take less from you, etc.?

JS: We’re not part of that chorus at the moment.

MM: Is this a permanent assignment or will you go back to News at some point?

JS: We’ll see what comes out of this assignment.

And here’s the companywide memo from Moore:

To:       Time Inc. Employees

From:   Ann Moore

Re: How to Put the Genie Back Into the Bottle; Special Assignment for John Squires

It won’t be a revelation to any of you that the publishing business is changing rapidly. While print magazines are not going away, and while we have built vibrant websites with over 26 million unique visitors and 750 million pages views each month, it’s increasingly clear that finding the right digital business model is crucial for the future of our business. We need to develop a strategy for the portable digital world and to refine our views on paid content.

Given the magnitude of the opportunity, I have asked John Squires to take on a new role and devote his full time efforts this summer to developing the best business plan for the future. John’s qualifications for this assignment are ideal. He has a strong background in consumer marketing and digital content and has stature in the publishing industry, as well as with digital software and hardware companies. It is likely we will be seeking partners and allies in our quest to ‘put the genie back into the bottle’.

As many of you know, we are currently pursuing four related initiatives:

1.    Evolving our current website businesses by identifying and developing consumer revenue streams.

2.    Accelerating the creation of applications for smartphone platforms.

3.    Developing new products and business models for portable digital readers.

4.    Exploring partnerships with other publishers to develop the optimal retail store for our digital products.

John will need the support of many, including Consumer Marketing, Legal, Strategy and Business Development, and the Time Inc. titles. Please pitch in with all your resources available when he calls.

During this assignment, similar to the role I’m playing at the Style and Entertainment Group, I will assume responsibility for the News Business Unit.

A.M.

BusinessWeek’s Ron Grover says Geffen “doesn’t so much see this as a business venture, but rather as a civic investment.” Newsweek’s Johnnie L. Roberts goes further, suggesting that Geffen would literally turn the Times into a nonprofit if he bought it.

Both Grover and Roberts are longtime media reporting pros, so when they cite sources with knowledge of Geffen’s thinking, I believe them. What I still don’t understand, and what observers and investors I’ve talked to are still puzzled about: How does Geffen plan to do that?

To reiterate: Geffen has reportedly tried to buy the 20 percent stake in the Times now owned by Harbinger Capital, though the two sides couldn’t agree on price. But even if they did, the transaction would only bail out Harbinger, not the Times.

And because the Times has a dual-class stock structure that keeps control of the company in the hands of the Ochs-Sulzberger family, taking on Harbinger’s stake doesn’t give Geffen a foot in the door to the company. It gives him the right to appoint two representatives to the company’s 14-member board of directors, but nothing else. Just ask the Harbinger folks.

Again, there are two plausible ways to acquire the Times:

1. Buy the super-voting shares outright from the Ochs-Sulzbergers, who have said they have no intention of selling. But then again, that’s what the Bancroft family said about Dow Jones, which owns the Wall Street Journal and this Web site. And News Corp.’s (NWS) Rupert Murdoch was able to overcome their objections by offering a 60 percent premium to the company’s share price. Maybe Geffen could try that.
2. Establish a large debt position with the company and exercise the power that comes along with that in the event of a restructuring. The problem: Billionaire Carlos Slim has already done that.

So. Anyone close to David Geffen want to explain what he’s really thinking? I’m all ears.

David Geffen, who had previously tried to buy the Los Angeles Times, has been trying to buy a chunk of the New York Times (NYT). So says Fortune magazine, which says that Geffen offered to buy the stake owned by Harbinger Capital, and so says TheWrap.com and Reuters.

None of the stories cite an on-the-record source. But my assumption is that, in all cases, the authors talked to Geffen, who has been known to chat up a reporter or two, and always with a very specific agenda.

In this case, Geffen–or whoever is talking to Fortune, TheWrap.com and Reuters–wants to make it clear that the billionaire media mogul is willing to buy a 19 percent chunk of the paper for a lot less than Harbinger did in 2007. The investment group paid some $500 million for its stake back then, and it is worth less than $200 million now.

Exactly why Geffen is so interested is unclear since it’s not like buying 19 percent of a run-of-the-mill public company where shareholders have real clout. The Times’s dual-class stock structure means it is, for all intents and purposes, a private company owned by the Ochs-Sulzberger family. The only real way to exercise influence over the company would be to lend it a good deal of money–which is exactly what billionaire Carlos Slim did earlier this year.

Also unclear: Why Google (GOOG) would have “looked seriously” at the opportunity to buy the Times in the last few weeks, as Fortune’s Richard Siklos reports in the same story.

The part that sounds right to me is that Harbinger approached co-founder Larry Page about a deal. That’s because Page is the Googler most concerned about the declining state of the newspaper business and has pushed the company to think about ways it could assist the industry.

Presumably that could be through commercial innovations like the new search feature the company is reportedly working on or perhaps even via Google.org, the company’s nonprofit foundation.

But I’m told that while Google execs have brought up the notion of snapping up distressed newspapers using its huge cash hoard within the past year, those talks have never gotten serious. It’s hard to see how they could: Google has emphatically stayed out of the content business so far, and it’s unclear why it would change direction now–and invest in a shrinking industry at the same time.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt himself declared that Google wasn’t in the newspaper-buying business a few months ago, in an interview with… Fortune:

“Fortune: How about just buying [newspapers]?

Schmidt: The good news is we could purchase them. We have the cash. But I don’t think our purchasing a newspaper would solve the business problems. It would help solidify the ownership structure, but it doesn’t solve the underlying problem in the business. Until we can answer that question, we’re in this uncomfortable conversation.

I think the solution is tighter integration. In other words, we can do this without making an acquisition. The term I’ve been using is ‘merge without merging.’ The Web allows you to do that, where you can get the Web systems of both organizations fairly well integrated, and you don’t have to do it on exclusive basis.”

That sounds an awful lot like someone who wants to advertise on newspaper sites, not buy them.

Portfolio’s ad pages were down more than 60 percent in the first quarter of 2009. If you account for the magazine’s decreased frequency–it published two issues in the first free months of the year, down down from three last year–that works out to be a 40 percent drop. Here’s how its peers performed during the same period, via the Magazine Publishers of America:

McGraw-Hill’s (MHP) BusinessWeek: Down 39.8 percent

Time Warner’s (TWX) Fortune: Down 26.3 percent

Privately held Forbes: Down 15 percent

Bear in mind that the revenue numbers for each title are likely down much more dramatically. That’s because the two categories of advertisers that the business magazines have depended on to fill their pages–financial services and autos–have all received extra-vicious beatings from the economy since last summer. So the publishers are particularly vulnerable to rate card pressure. And I’m told that luxury and travel advertisers, which had stayed relatively strong through the end of 2008, fell off dramatically this year. So that can’t be good.

My contribution to the aforementioned bone-picking: Like everyone else who wrote about Portfolio yesterday, I mentioned that the magazine and Web site had reportedly been launched with a budget of $100 million or more. But let’s be clear–that’s $100 million (or more), to be spent over a five-year period.

Portfolio was around for two years, and was gestating for a year before that, and a bunch of the budget was likely spent up front. So Condé Nast likely did burn through a very large pile of cash–the New York Times’s David Carr reports that the magazine spent $30,000 last fall to “procure the services of a real elephant to menace a model at a photo shoot.” And I’d love to know what the total actually was (for the record, I asked, and no one will tell me). But it’s a stretch to think Condé Nast actually burned through nine figures on this one.

The magazine’s May issue, which is out now, will be its last. The Web site will be shuttered “in the second quarter,” the company says.

Portfolio has had its doubters even prior to its launch in 2007. Long before the advertising market cratered, critics worried that the market couldn’t support a fourth business magazine to compete with Forbes, Time Warner’s (TWX ) Fortune and McGraw-Hill’s (MHP) BusinessWeek; they also marveled at the reported $100 million budget that Condé Nast had committed to the launch.

No telling whether that bet would have paid off in a healthier market for the high-end advertising that business magazines thrive on. (But likely not: “Condé Nast made a classic mistake of spotting a consumer magazine ‘opportunity’ based on advertising and demographic considerations, not actual reader demand,” as BusinessWeek’s Jon Fine puts it). But the current market is as bad as it could get: In the first three months of 2009, magazine ad pages declined more than 25 percent, according to an industry trade group, and Portfolio’s pages dropped by more than 60 percent. Some of that drop stems from the magazine’s move to a 10-issue-a-year schedule, down from 12 a year.

But Portfolio has been suffering for quite some time. Last fall, the magazine laid off a good portion of its staff and turned its Web site into a skeleton operation. And parent Condé Nast, which also made a round of layoffs last fall, has continued to cut back this year, eliminating perks, staff and titles throughout the company. In March CEO Chuck Townsend sent out a memo warning that “as the downturn extends, we have to make additional difficult decisions to manage costs and ensure our financial well-being.”

Here’s the full statement from Carey:

Earlier today, Condé Nast announced, quite regrettably, that it is pulling back from its investment in Portfolio.

For this high-profile, 21-issue launch, the recession has helped and hurt the brand. While the unprecedented nature of these times has made business and the economy the main topic of conversation, it has also led to high levels of uncertainty and a tremendous reduction in ad spend in the five key sectors Portfolio’s business model depends on.

The company is deeply grateful to Portfolio’s readers and for the broad support of marketers and executives all around the country.

And here’s the beginning of the magazine’s obituary from soon-to-be-unemployed Portfolio.com media writer Jeff Bercovici:

For nearly two years I’ve been covering the media industry’s bad news on this blog, including some that’s hit very close to home. Now it hits closer still: Condé Nast Portfolio is closing.

Our editor in chief, Joanne Lipman, just broke the news to staff, saying the decision had been made “because of financial reasons at Advance,” Condé Nast’s parent company. “It’s not anything that the company wanted to do.” She said she was informed by Condé Nast chairman S.I. Newhouse Jr. this morning of the decision.

And here’s the press release:

Condé Nast will cease publication of Portfolio effective with its May issue and Portfolio.com will close in the second quarter of the year, it was announced today by Charles H. Townsend, President and CEO of Condé Nast.

“The pressures and realities of the continuous deep economic slump have lowered Portfolio’s revenue projections below what is needed to continue publication,” Mr. Townsend said. “Portfolio was an ambitious and innovative magazine and website, and we were proud to publish them. The challenges facing this launch however proved too great. Joanne Lipman is an extraordinarily skillful editor and William Li is a very talented publisher. We thank them and their staffs for their tremendous efforts. It is unfortunate we were unable to give Portfolio the time needed to fully mature.”

Portfolio and Portfolio.com were launched in May 2007. The magazine has published 21 issues since its launch. The magazine received a National Magazine Award in 2008 and has been nominated for multiple awards since.

Condé Nast Publications, a unit of Advance Publications, includes consumer magazines, Condé Nast Digital, the Fairchild Fashion Group, the Condé Nast Media Group, and the Shared Services Centers.

The New York Post’s Keith Kelly has already reported that layoffs are in motion at People, Time and Sports Illustrated over the next few days; I am told that cuts are also coming to Fortune magazine today or tomorrow. Here’s a Sports Illustrated employee’s take on the situation there:

We are all expecting the hatchet Thursday or Friday. Morale is dismal. One colleague of mine, uber golf writer John Garrity, told several of us that he’s taking the package but will continue on for a while as a special contributor. We expect two or three photo editors to go, and two or three members of the Sport’s Illustrated Latino staff (the Spanish language SI publication, which posted a net profit of approx. one million in ’07 and broke even in ’08, was inexplicably shuttered). Also photographers are rumored to be being cut to half time service and members of our copy desk have been asked to take up to a 30% pay reduction for which they will work fewer hours. Charlie Leerhsen, one of our two executive editors, told a few staff members that he was going to be leaving.”

In other layoff/shutdown news:

• I am told that Forbes (where I worked for many years), is in the final stages of planning cuts as it prepares to merge the editorial operations of its magazine and Web site units. Last month the company began integrating its business groups and laid off about three dozen people in the process.
• GE’s (GE) NBC Universal has laid off at least 30 people in its sales group, reports AdAge. The cuts are part of a previously reported mandate from NBC CEO Jeff Zucker to cut three percent of the company’s budget. The Post says another 80 people could be fired at CNBC.
• Barry Diller’s IAC (IACI) is breaking up its programming group, which includes ventures like College Humor, 236.com and Tina Brown’s DailyBeast.com. Some but not all of the sites will be closed down or sold off. PaidContent has details.

As always, I value reader input: You can reach me directly at peter@allthingsd.com. If you want to be completely anonymous, you can use the blind tip box here.

Last month, the Time Warner (TWX) magazine unit announced a sweeping reorg that is expected to cost about 600 employees their jobs. But the details have yet to be announced.

That started changing today, but my understanding is that the cuts won’t be accomplished with one swing of the ax, which is unfortunate for everyone involved.

Today’s memos will at least add some clarity, and I’ll republish them here as I get them, with your help. As always, I keep all correspondence anonymous: peter@allthingsd.com.

So far I’ve collected memos from four of the five titles, but am still looking for details on Money. Time, SI, People and Fortune are looking for 90 volunteers to leave their jobs.

Bear in mind that these memos only deal with editorial jobs. I’m assuming there are also significant cuts planned on the business side. Details as I get them.

[UPDATE: Some cuts on the business side, too. The company has laid off 92 people from its consumer sales and marketing group.]

Fortune managing editor Andy Serwer doesn’t spell out the number of volunteers he’s looking for in his note, but I’m told he informed staff today that he needs about a dozen positions eliminated:

Unfortunately, we will need to reduce staff at Fortune in the writer-editor, writer-reporter, designer, editorial assistant and copy coordinator Guild categories, and we are asking for a number of volunteers to leave the company with a severance package. If you are interested in confidentially exploring this option, please contact Dawn Dunlop in HR at [redacted] or Edith Fried at [redacted] by Friday, November 21, 2008. If we do not have enough volunteers, we will need to begin a process of involuntary layoffs. For your reference, the Company’s severance formula is in the Guild contract and is also posted on Time Traveler.”

Sports Illustrated needs 40 bodies gone within two weeks, says managing editor Terry McDonnell:

For the reasons outlined in Ann Moore’s reorganization announcement of 10/28/08, the Sports Illustrated Group will reduce the size of its staff across all properties. At the magazine, we will reduce staff in the following guild-covered categories:

• copy editors
• photographers
• designers
• photo equipment technicians
• picture catalogers
• picture researchers
• reporter-researchers
• research assistants
• writer-editors
• writer-reporters

A number of jobs not covered by the guild will also be eliminated at the magazine and across the group.

Approximately 40 guild and non-guild volunteers are needed over the next two weeks to avoid involuntary job eliminations. If the number of volunteers falls short by Monday, December 1, involuntary layoffs will begin.”

People wants to drop 18 editorial employees (via Gawker):

As part of a broad Time Inc. work force reduction, I regret to announce that People magazine will be making cuts in its editorial staff. We are looking for the volunteers to accept severance packages in the following Guild-covered job classifications:

• up to 6 reporter-researchers
• up to 4 Los Angeles-based staff members from among staff correspondents and writer-editors
• up to 4 New York-based staff members from among staff correspondents, writer-editors and writer-reporters
• up to 3 copy editors
• 1 research librarian

We are also looking for up to two Guild-covered volunteers each in the Art Department and photo department, and one in the News Bureau.

In addition to this call for Guild volunteers, non-Guild employees may inquire about the possibility of volunteering for a severance package.

I urge all those interested to contact People’s human resources representatives [redacted] for details regarding their particular package.

In addition to the above cuts, we are looking for savings from full-time staffers interested in working a four-day week (Tuesdays off) for commensurate salary. This call is voluntary, and final decisions will be made based on business needs and management discretion.

The call for volunteers expires on Dec 1. If necessary, after that we will follow the Guild contract procedure for conducting involuntary layoffs in Guild categories.

If you have any questions, please see me or your department heads.”

Time is looking for 20 volunteers (via Newsweek.com editor–and former Time employee–Mark Coatney):

Due to the corporate restructuring, we need to reduce approximately 20 staffers at TIME across the following guild-covered categories: edit traffic assistant, writer-editor, staff correspondent, writer-reporter, reporter-researcher, designer, research cataloger and research librarian.

Volunteers in these positions or any others can raise their hands any time in the next two weeks. If we do not have enough volunteers by Monday, November 24th, we will begin a process of involuntary layoffs.”