Media General Case Study QUESTION TWO

For exclusive use at University of Glasgow, 2015
UV1135
MEDIA GENERAL AND THE BALANCED SCORECARD (A)
In June 2000, Bill McDonnell, director of budgeting and planning, helped lead the
enterprise-wide implementation of the balanced scorecard (BSC) at Media General, Inc. The
balanced scorecard initiative was undertaken with the intention of breaking down the silos
between Media General’s three separate divisions and supporting its new corporate strategy that
focused on media convergence. One of the largest challenges McDonnell and the company faced
was how to ensure that this would not be perceived as just “another management fad.” Nearly
five years later in early 2005 as McDonnell looked back on the implementation process, he
wondered what more could be done to make sure the BCS was an integral part of the everyday
operations of Media General.
Media General, Inc.
Media General was an independent, publicly owned communications company situated in

the southeastern United States with ownership interests in newspapers, television stations, and
interactive media.1 The company’s mission was “To be the leading provider of high-quality
news, information, and entertainment in the Southeast by continually building our position of
strength in strategically located markets.”2 Senior management under the leadership of J. Stewart
Bryan III, chair and chief executive officer (CEO), and Marshall Morton, chief financial officer
(CFO), had spent ten years restructuring operations to achieve that mission. In 1995, Media
General primarily consisted of three metro daily newspapers, three broadcast television stations,
one cable television franchise, and a recycled newsprint operation (see Exhibit 1A). From that
point in time, the company embarked on a massive acquisition strategy that led to the purchase
of daily and weekly newspapers and broadcast television stations. In October 1995, the company
acquired four daily and Sunday newspapers and twenty weeklies in Virginia from Worrell
Enterprises.3 In January 1997, Media General acquired Park Communications, adding seven
1
Media General, Media General Web site, http://www.mediageneral.com (accessed March 2005).
2
Media General, Media General Web site.
3
Media General, Press Releases, Media General Web site, http://www.media general.com/news/index.htm
(accessed March 2005).
This case was prepared by Darrell Eakes (MBA ‘05) under the supervision of Professor Mark Haskins. It was
written as a basis for class discussion rather than to illustrate effective or ineffective handling of an administrative
situation. Copyright  2008 by the University of Virginia Darden School Foundation, Charlottesville, VA. All
rights reserved. To order copies, send an e-mail to sales@dardenbusinesspublishing.com. No part of this publication
may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, used in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form or by any
means—electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise—without the permission of the Darden
School Foundation.
This document is authorized for use only in MA and control-1 by Prof. Danture Wickramasinghe, University of Glasgow from October 2015 to April 2016.
-2- UV1135
daily newspapers and nine broadcast television stations throughout the Southeast.4 In March
2000, the company acquired thirteen television stations from Spartan Communications.5 Finally,
in August 2000, Media General acquired from Thomson Corp. the Dothan Eagle, the Opelika-
Auburn News, the Morning News (Florence), and several other daily and weekly newspapers in
Alabama, South Carolina, and Florida.6 As part of its refocusing, the company also divested two
of its divisions. In October 1999, Media General completed the sale of its cable television
operations to Cox Communications, Inc.7 In August 2000, it sold Garden State Paper Co., a
newsprint manufacturing company, to Enron.8 See Exhibit 1B.
Through those six large transactions and a string of smaller deals, Media General became
a diversified communications company operating leading newspapers, television stations, and
on-line enterprises, primarily in the southeastern United States. The company’s fiscal year 2004
financial statements reported total assets of nearly $2.4 billion and total revenues of $900
million.9 See Exhibit 2 for 2002 to 2004ecent financials.
Publishing division
The company’s publishing assets included 3 metropolitan newspapers (the Tampa

Tribune, the Richmond Times-Dispatch, and the Winston-Salem Journal); 22 daily community
newspapers in Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Alabama, and South Carolina; more than 100
weekly newspapers and other publications; and a 20% interest in the Denver Post.10
Broadcast television division
The company’s broadcasting assets included 26 network-affiliated television stations that

reached more than 30% of the television households in the Southeast and nearly 8% of all
households in the United States.11
Interactive media division
In August 1994, the Tampa Tribune launched a new on-line service, Tampa Bay On-line.
The Richmond Times-Dispatch followed shortly with the launching of its own on-line service,
Gateway Virginia, in October 1995. Those two services were precursors to Media General’s
third division, interactive media. In January 2001, Media General launched its interactive media
division, which was the cornerstone of the company’s efforts to fully integrate Internet
4
Media General, Press Releases, Media General Web site, http://www.media general.com/news/index.htm
5
Media General, Press Releases.
6
7
8
9
Media General, 2004 Annual Report, 29–31, http://www.mediageneral.com/reports/annual/2004/
mg2004ar.pdf (accessed April 2005).
10
11
-3- UV1135
technologies into its corporate strategies. The new division built upon the strengths of the
company’s newspapers, television stations, and financial databases to create profitable on-line
enterprises. The company’s interactive media assets included more than 50 on-line enterprises
that were associated with its newspapers and television stations, including Tampa Bay On-line
and Richmond Times-Dispatch On-line.12
Media Convergence
In addition to the regional focus on the southeastern United States, Media General
developed its future vision and strategy around creating high-quality content and delivering the
content whenever, wherever, and however its customers wanted it. Known internally as
“convergence,” the strategy entailed convergence of three different media platforms—
publishing, broadcast television, and Internet—to provide news and advertising. By leveraging
the unique strengths of each medium, the company believed it could provide customers with a
higher quality product than they could obtain from just one medium.13 Convergence, according to
J. Stewart Bryan III, was a “means of bringing together the depth of newspapers, the drama of
television, and the power and the immediacy of the Internet.”14 Bryan further explained, “By
converging media platforms in a given market, we position our properties as an indispensable
source of information. We leverage our content and capitalize on Internet opportunities.”15
Operationally, convergence was a process of gathering news in a marketplace and

distributing it across different outlets. The company would then take advantage of the multiple
sources of content to attract advertisers looking to reach consumers in different ways.16 In March
2000, Media General opened a news center in Tampa, Florida, that combined the newsrooms of
WFLA (Tampa’s NBC affiliate), the Tampa Tribune, and Tampa Bay On-line under one roof,
creating a laboratory for media convergence.17 After that, Media General implemented
convergence in five additional markets, including central and southwest Virginia, South
Carolina, the Florida Panhandle–Southern Alabama, and the Alabama–Georgia state line. In June
2003, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) relaxed its previous cross-
ownership rule banning one company from owning both a newspaper and broadcast television
station in the same market. This ruling paved the way for Media General to further its
convergence activities and to look for new opportunities across the Southeast.18
12
13
William L. McDonnell, “Taking Convergence to the Next Level,” PowerPoint presentation, 12 May 2004.
14
Pete Wetmore, “Smaller Markets to Share Media Resources,” News Inc., 17 July 2000,
http://www.mediageneral.com/newscenter/newsinc.htm (accessed March 2005).
15
J. Stewart Bryan III, “Convergence in Action,” PowerPoint presentation, 7 March 2001.
16
William L. McDonnell, interview by author, Richmond, Virginia, April 2005.
17
Media General, “Convergence: The Power of Multimedia,” Media General Web site,
http://www.mediageneral.com/newscenter/index.htm (accessed March 2005).
18
-4- UV1135
See Exhibit 1B for convergence markets.19 By the beginning of 2001, Media General had
completely re-created itself into a three-division company focused on providing content to the
Southeast. In order to successfully achieve its vision, the company needed to have its divisions
and corporate functions work more closely as a team than ever before.20
Strategic Planning before the Balanced Scorecard
Before 2001, the strategic planning process at Media General emphasized only financial
analysis, using a three-year planning cycle to highlight opportunities and challenges for each
division. As with many companies, Media General performed monthly reviews of actual
financial data compared to its budgeted and prior-year financial data to measure success. Targets
for future performance were established at the operating-unit and division levels and approved
by senior management at the corporate office. Financial targets for the company primarily
focused on return on assets (ROA) and earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and
amortization (EBITDA) measures.21 Financial measurements were backward-looking only: They
could not predict success nor could they tell if employees were working on activities that would
produce financial success.22 The company needed a planning process that not only focused on
financial measures, but also focused on the critical, qualitative success factors that drove
financial outcomes.23
Why the Balanced Scorecard?
To address those shortcomings, Media General introduced the balanced scorecard in the
second half of 2000 as an alternative to the former financially driven planning process.
Senior management recognized that the company had three divisions that had been
operating as separate units.24 In an effort to have its three divisions and the corporate team work
more closely together on strategic issues facing the company, in late 2001, Media General
relocated its broadcast division to Richmond from Tampa and housed it in a building with the
new interactive media division.25 As it recognized the need for its employees to work more
closely together, senior management also recognized the need to implement a strategic planning
and scorekeeping system that encouraged and developed integration.26
19
Media General, “Convergence: The Power of Multimedia,” Media General Web site,
http://www.mediageneral.com/newscenter/index.htm (accessed March 2005).
20
William L. McDonnell, interview by author, Richmond, Virginia, April 2005.
21
William L. McDonnell interview.
22
23
J. Stewart Bryan III, “Using the Balanced Scorecard to Build the Media Company of the Future,” PowerPoint
presentation, 13 June 13 2002.
24
25
26
-5- UV1135
The divisional and corporate executives did not have a formal process to evaluate the
company’s integrated strategy as an ongoing team.27 The convergence strategy required strong
teamwork and cooperation across divisional lines, and the company believed that the BSC helped
facilitate both.28 Top management also wanted a means to integrate the divisional and corporate
activities and to monitor the collective goals of the company.29 Stewart Bryan emphasized, “The
balanced scorecard does an excellent job of helping everyone understand how we put a dollar
value on qualitative issues, such as delivering news at the right time, or delivering the right news
to the right people.” In a service and content company, such as Media General, management saw
the need to have a process that assessed the company’s ability to complete qualitative activities
that it deemed important to meeting the financial goals of the company.30 Describing the choice
to implement the balanced scorecard, McDonnell explained:
We selected the scorecard to give our company a shared language and common
way of measuring success that goes beyond financial measures. We wanted a
mechanism that helps us monitor leading indicators of financial performance. The
implementation of leading indicators gives us the opportunity to adjust our actions
ahead of possible shortfalls in financial performance.31
Balanced Scorecard Structure
In general, the balanced scorecard system guided a company to analyze itself from four
perspectives: financial, customer, internal business processes, and learning and growth. The
financial perspective provided economic measurements of the company’s contribution to
improving its bottom line and shareholder value. The customer perspective identified which
segments the company would serve and what strategy was necessary to satisfy the customers’
needs. The internal business process perspective highlighted the activities—existing and new—
that the company had to master to provide value to its targeted customers. The learning and
growth perspective emphasized the people, system, and organizational capabilities necessary to
support the previous three perspectives.32
Within each of those perspectives, the company had to define the following: objective
statements, measures, targets, and strategic initiatives that supported the mission and vision of
the company. Objective statements were concise statements of what the company was going to
do.33 Media General’s objectives are shown in the circles of the strategy map in Exhibit 3.
27
28
J. Stewart Bryan III, “Using the Balanced Scorecard to Build the Media Company of the Future,” PowerPoint
presentation, 13 June 2002.
29
30
J. Stewart Bryan III, “Using the Balanced Scorecard.”
31
32
Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton, The Balanced Scorecard, (Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business
School Press, 1996): 25–28.
33
William L. McDonnell, “Developing the Strategy Focused Organization at Media General,” PowerPoint
presentation, 30 June 2000.
-6- UV1135
Measures monitored the activities that the company undertook to achieve its objectives. Targets
were set for each measure to define when success was achieved. Lastly, strategic initiatives were
discrete action programs created to focus resources on activities needed to support the objective
statements.34
Balanced Scorecard Design and Implementation
Media General engaged a consulting company, the Balanced Scorecard Collaborative

(BSCol), to help create a process to design its balanced scorecard. The Balanced Scorecard
Collaborative, led by balanced scorecard creators Drs. Robert Kaplan and David Norton, was a
global consulting firm that helped companies develop and implement the scorecard as a value-
added management process.35 Media General’s budgeting and planning department worked
closely with BSCol to learn how the balanced scorecard was used as a strategic tool and how
other companies (such as Mobil) designed their scorecards. Based on BSCol’s experience and
the company case studies it provided, Media General decided the first step was to create an
enterprise scorecard for the strategy of the entire organization. Beginning with a focus at the top
of the organization allowed senior management to communicate key objectives and values that
were important to the entire organization. With technical guidance and insight from BSCol,
Media General created a strategy map (see Exhibit 3) that became the basis for the enterprise
scorecard.36
The second step in the process was to cascade the balanced scorecard process down to the
three divisions, the operating units, and the corporate support groups. Media General chose to
begin the cascading process with its largest two divisions (publishing and broadcast television)
and its single, largest corporate-support group (information technology). The initial balanced
scorecard collaborative consulting engagement included helping with the design of these three
additional scorecards. Media General then used the same template to create scorecards for the
interactive media division, all other corporate-support groups, and finally all operating units
throughout the company. The budgeting and planning department within Media General
developed the process and timeline of the cascading process to the lower levels of the company.37
See Exhibit 4 for the design and implementation timeline.
Media General’s design strategy was to use the knowledge of BSCol to help create a
template and process at the top that could be duplicated throughout the company. Management
commented that it did not want to begin with a “bottom-up approach,” because it did not want
the individual operating units to build an operational strategy that served its own needs without
reference to how those needs fit into the larger picture of what Media General was trying to
accomplish. It did recognize that operating units had unique objectives and measures that were
34
William L. McDonnell, “Developing the Strategy.”
35
Balanced Scorecard Collaborative, Balanced Scorecard Collaborative Web site, http://www.bscol.com/bscol
36
37
-7- UV1135
relevant to what Media General was trying to accomplish. The goal was to build into the lower-
level scorecards elements that were critical to the local level and also fit into the enterprise-wide
strategy.38 Internally, Media General created three groups to help make its initial enterprise
scorecard.
Balanced scorecard development team
The balanced scorecard development team consisted of the corporate budgeting and
planning department. During the development of the initial scorecards, this team provided
logistical ownership of the project and led the process of cascading the scorecard throughout
each division, operating unit, and corporate department. This team also owned the ongoing
communication and technical support of the balanced scorecard as the company’s enterprise-
wide strategic management system.39
Executive leadership team
The executive leadership team for the enterprise scorecard included Media General’s
senior executives (CEO, chief operating officer [COO], CFO, treasurer, controller, and vice
president of corporate communications), divisional presidents, and senior leaders. This team was
charged with producing a climate for change and accountability. The budgeting and planning
department recognized the need to have the company’s top management active in the process to
show its support for the balanced scorecard.40
Crossfunctional core teams
The crossfunctional core team for the enterprise scorecard included representatives from
the three divisions and various corporate-support groups with a variety of functional
backgrounds. This team was charged with translating the strategy created by the leadership team
into operational terms. Duties included developing measures to support the strategic objectives
and linking initiatives to specific objectives. The budgeting and planning department designed
this team to be diverse to address alignment issues as they occurred.41
Exhibit 5 is an organizational chart of the teams that created the balanced scorecard. This
organizational structure was repeated in the creation of the division, operating unit, and corporate
support-group scorecards.
38
39
40
41
-8- UV1135
Performancesoft
In 2002, a Balanced Scorecard Software Selection Committee was created to select a

software system to help manage the BSC. Media General wanted the balanced scorecard process
in place prior to selecting a software system; it did not want the software to drive the process.
Major goals for a new system included: (1) a single database for the entire enterprise for real-
time gathering, querying, reporting, and analyzing of data; (2) standardized data entry and
commentary across corporate, division, and local levels; and (3) interface with other systems
currently in place to reduce manual data collection and increase data accuracy.42
After comparing several vendors based upon their products’ data-entry capabilities
(manual and automated feeds), system functionality (reporting, security) and maintenance
(upgrades, patches), the group selected Actuate Corporation and its Performancesoft Suite.
Actuate constructed the software to match Media General’s scorecard based upon interviews
with corporate, divisional, and operating-unit managers about the strategic planning process
already in place. The software rollout, which began in January 2003, included a half-day training
session for 450 end-users spread across operating units, division offices, and corporate
departments.43
With the implementation of Performancesoft, Media General was able to automate a

significant amount of data entry from other enterprise systems, such as its financial information
and circulation systems. All information in the system was audited by the corporate budgeting
and planning department and was reviewed annually by Ernst & Young, the company’s external
auditors.44
Implementation Timing
Media General implemented the scorecard in phases, starting with the enterprise-wide
scorecard and cascading down the organization—implementing division level, operating-unit,
and corporate-support group scorecards. The enterprise-wide scorecard and two division-level
scorecards were created simultaneously, taking six months to accomplish. Operating-unit
scorecards followed, taking an additional six to nine months to implement. Support-group
(corporate department) scorecards represented the final phase, requiring an additional six to nine
months to put into place. Finally, the rollout of Performancesoft software system took six months
beginning in January 2003. To design and roll out the balanced scorecard and Performancesoft
system took a total of approximately 36 months.45 See Exhibit 4 for an implementation timeline.
42
Stephanie H. Paget, interview by author, Richmond, Virginia, April 2005.
43
Stephanie H. Paget interview.
44
Stephanie H. Paget interview.
45
-9- UV1135
Alignment across the Enterprise
Since Media General adopted the balanced scorecard in part to help break down
divisional silos and build convergence, it anticipated that there might be alignment issues. It
recognized that the decision to design an enterprise scorecard and then to cascade the system to
different operating units could also create alignment concerns. One alignment issue was that with
three different media platforms combined into one company, it was difficult for Media General
to come to a consensus on what were the true drivers of the business. Another alignment issue
was defining the measures in a manner that made sense to all three divisions. Corporate and
operating-unit management both agreed, however, that the most difficult issue was limiting the
number of measures to only a few key elements that actually drove strategy.46
One way Media General dealt with its alignment issues was standardization. It
standardized the definitions of objectives and measures that were to be used. The company also
standardized the data source and data collection methods for certain measures. The second means
of addressing alignment was flexibility. Corporate management provided each of the operating
units enough autonomy to design a scorecard that met local objectives but still supported the
corporate-wide goals. The company built an alignment grid outlining all objectives and measures
for the enterprise and division scorecards. Any gaps in the grid where no measures supported a
particular objective were filled. Any objectives on one particular scorecard that conflicted with
the overall strategy of the company were changed or eliminated.47 The company used a similar
mapping process to align strategic initiatives across the company. Initiatives were linked to the
individual objectives they supported.48
Alignment was a constant challenge for multiple division companies using the balanced
scorecard. Media General established processes to help address alignment continuously.
Every quarter, as the leadership team for each scorecard met to monitor results of the
scorecard, it also reviewed the strategy map, objectives, and measures currently in place. If they
were not relevant to serving the company’s identified customers and achieving the company’s
mission then new objectives or measures were created. At these quarterly review meetings, each
leadership team also discussed the relevance and progress of current initiatives and identified
potential new ones. Media General recognized that alignment was an important issue and
believed that establishing regular conversations between leaders across the organization was the
best way to proactively address the topic.49
At the operating-unit level, alignment meant harmony across internal departments as well
as across external divisions. “Employees will use the scorecard as a guide for making choices,
setting priorities, and goals for themselves,” commented Deb Halpern, assistant news director at
WFLA. She added, “I think all employees will understand that it [the balanced scorecard] is a
46
47
48
49
-10- UV1135
way to make sure their work group is working in tandem to achieve a common goal. It is
encouraging that we are moving away from a budget-based to a brain-based organization.”50
Employee Communication Program
Media General recognized the importance of a strong communications program in

implementing the balanced scorecard management system. Senior management noted that
communication of the scorecard should increase employees’ understanding of the strategy and
motivate them to help the organization achieve its strategic objectives. After utilizing the
scorecard framework developed by Balanced Scorecard Collaborative, the company built its own
process to communicate the scorecard to its employees.51
A communication tool kit was sent to the top executive at each operating unit, complete
with:
 Brochures describing how the balanced scorecard affected each employee;

 A CD-ROM with a script to help local executives explain the system;
 A videotape of Media General’s top executives providing their support of the program.52
An executive in the interactive media division noted that the key to communicating the balanced
scorecard to employees was showing the link to everyday operations. He explained, “If it is not
important to the operation, then it shouldn’t be on the scorecard.” He also suggested that the
scorecard helped communicate to managers that they needed to have a plan to deal with all
aspects of the business. If there was an objective and a measure on the scorecard, then the
manager knew that it was a driver of the business and therefore must be managed.53
A section of the company’s intranet (the meganet) was dedicated entirely to the BSC.
New-employee orientation introduced the scorecard to employees on their first day. Company
newsletters also highlighted company performance and individual accomplishments associated
with the BSC.54 The scorecard itself also served as a communication tool. Using a three-color
system, the scorecard highlighted actual performance against targets:
 Green: met or exceeded target;

 Yellow: fell just short of target (within 15%);
 Red: significantly below target (more than 15%).55
50
Liz Cleal, “New Process Rewards Employees for Great Decisions and Measurable Results,” The MG News,
(April–May 2001): 8.
51
52
53
Glenn Lapkin, interview by author, Richmond, Virginia, April 2005.
54
55
-11- UV1135
Employee Performance Measurement
When it implemented the balanced scorecard as its new strategic management system,
Media General also standardized its employee performance measurement process. The result was
a new enterprise-wide personal development program (PDP) that highlighted past performance
and future objectives. The documentation required checking boxes indicating to which balanced
scorecard objective the employee’s goals related. This allowed each individual to see how his or
her personal accomplishments related directly to the success of the company.56
Bill McDonnell knew that there was support for the balanced scorecard at the top of the
corporation. Stewart Bryan offered the following endorsement:
The beauty of the balanced scorecard is that it gives every employee the
opportunity to understand how his or her role affects company performance. It
gives everyone a common language to discuss strategy, goals, and achievements.
Instead of just tracking financial results, we measure the things that will help us
accomplish our mission. By focusing on our common values and measuring our
progress along the way, we are able to link customer services, process
improvement, and employee development to long-term financial success. We look
forward to continuing and improving the balanced scorecard process at Media
General.57
In talking to managers at the division and operating-unit levels, however, he knew there were
still concerns. Some managers had difficulty getting people to understand the scorecard and its
power. Others were afraid that it was simply more administrative reports and would not add
value to their day-to-day operations.58 With those different thoughts racing through his mind,
McDonnell wondered how well the company had implemented its new strategic planning system
and what Media General needed to do to make sure this was now a part of the company’s
culture.
56
57
Company internal document.
58
Glenn Lapkin interview.
-12-
Exhibit 1A
Media General Operations in 1995
Source: Company records.
-13- UV1135
Exhibit 1B
Media General Operations and Convergence Markets in 2005
-14- UV1135
Exhibit 2
Media General Consolidated Statements of Operations
Fiscal Years Ended

December 26, December 26, December 29,
(In thousands) 2004 2003 2002
Revenues $ 900,420 $ 837,423 $ 831,582

Operating costs:
Production 375,752 356,694 345,647
Selling, general and administrative 309,300 292,986 272,430
Depreciation and amortization 66,036 65,467 65,401
Total operating costs 751,088 715,147 683,478
Operating income 149,332 122,276 148,104
Other income (expense):
Interest expense (31,082) (34,424) (47,874)
Investment income (loss) - unconsolidated affiliates 1,551 (4,672) (14,129)
Other, net 7,477 10,666 (115)
Total other income (expense) (22,054) (28,430) (62,118)
Income from continuing operations before income taxes and
cumulative effect of change in accounting principle 127,278 93,846 85,986
Income taxes 47,093 34,800 33,944
Income from continuing operations before cumulative effect of
change in accounting principle 80,185 59,046 52,042
Discontinued operations:
Income from discontinued operations (net of income taxes of $551 in - 964 1,377
2003 and $787 in 2002)
Gain on sale of operations (net of income taxes of $3,860 in 2003) - 6,754 -
Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle (net of income tax

benefit of $3,420 in 2003 and $12,1888 in 2002) - (8,079) (126,336)
Net income (loss) $ 80,185 $ 58,685 $ (72,917)
Source: Media General 2004 Annual Report.
-15- UV1135
Exhibit 2 (continued)
Media General Consolidated Balance Sheets

December 26, December 26,
(In thousands, except shares) 2004 2003
ASSETS
Current Assets:
Cash and cash equivalents $ 9,823 $ 10,575
Accounts receivable (less allowance for doubtful
accounts 2004 - $5,994; 2003 - $7,011) 117,177 113,226
Inventories 8,021 6,171
Other 35,826 32,649
Total current assets 170,847 162,621
Investments in unconsolidated affiliates 93,277 89,994
Other assets 59,676 60,277
Property, plant and equipment, at cost:
Land 31,248 32,877
Buildings 269,341 269,842
Machinery and equipment 518,606 503,985
Construction in progress 13,280 10,669
Accumulated depreciation (410,176) (383,285)
Net property, plant and equipment 422,299 434,088
Excess of cost over fair value of net identifiable assets
of acquired businesses 832,004 832,004
FCC licenses and other intangibles 790,709 807,771
Total assets $ 2,368,812 $ 2,386,755
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY

Current liabilities:
Accounts payable $ 27,000 $ 22,210
Accrued expenses and other liabilities 92,163 83,424
Income taxes payable 7,708 8,769
Total current liabilities 126,871 114,403
Long-term debt 437,960 531,969
Borrowings of consolidated variable interest entities 95,320 95,320
Deferred income taxes 390,132 362,769
Other liabilities and deferred credits 134,760 174,833
Stockholders' equity:
Preferred stock ($5 cumulative convertible), par value $5 per share:
authorized 5,000,000 shares; none outstanding
Common stock, par value $5 per share:

Class A, authorized 75,000,000 shares; issued 23,230,109
and 22,989,506 shares 116,150 114,947
Class B, authorized 600,000 shares; issued 555,992 shares 2,780 2,780
Additional paid-in capital 46,067 34,595
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss):
Unrealized gain on equity securities 2,222 3,498
Unrealized loss on derivative contracts (5,971) (9,757)
Minimum pension liability (46,903) (44,725)
Unearned compensation (9,408) (11,670)
Retained earnings 1,078,832 1,017,793
Total stockholders' equity 1,183,769 1,107,461
Total liabilities and stockholders' equity 2,368,812 2,386,755

Source: Media General 2004 Annual Report.
-16- UV1135
Exhibit 3
Media General Enterprise Strategy Map
-17- UV1135
Exhibit 4
Balanced Scorecard Design and Implementation Timeline
Jun 2000 Jun 2001 Jun 2003

Initial Enterprise Complete Initial Support Mar 2002 BSC and
BSC Meeting Ent., Pub., Group BSC Initial Software Software
BTV, & IT Meetings Team Meeting Implemented
Scorecards
Jan 2001 Complete

Sep 2001 Jan 2003
Initial IMD and Cascading to
Complete Begin Rollout of
Op. Unit BSC Support Groups
cascading performancesoft
Meetings
to Op. Units
Design, Implementation
and Rollout (6 months)
Enterprise Scorecard
Publishing Division Scorecard
Broadcast TV Division Scorecard and Rollout (9 months)
IT Department Scorecard
Interactive Media Division Scorecard

Operating Unit Scorecards
and Rollout (9 months)
Support Group Scorecards System Selection and System Rollout and

Design (9 months) Training (6 months)
Step 1 Scorecard Software System

(performancesoft)
Scorecard Software System
(performancesoft)
Step 2
-18- UV1135
Exhibit 5
Balanced Scorecard Design Team Organization Chart
Executive Sponsor/
CFO
Balanced Cross Executive

Scorecard Functional Leadership
Development Core Teams Team
Team
Staff Knowledgeable of Business

Strategies
and Organization

Media General Case Study QUESTION TWO

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Media General Case Study QUESTION TWO

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

For exclusive use at University of Glasgow, 2015

MEDIA GENERAL AND THE BALANCED SCORECARD (A)

Media General, Inc.

Media General was an independent, publicly owned communications company situated in

The company’s publishing assets included 3 metropolitan newspapers (the Tampa

Broadcast television division

The company’s broadcasting assets included 26 network-affiliated television stations that

Interactive media division

Operationally, convergence was a process of gathering news in a marketplace and

Strategic Planning before the Balanced Scorecard

Why the Balanced Scorecard?

Balanced Scorecard Structure

Balanced Scorecard Design and Implementation

Media General engaged a consulting company, the Balanced Scorecard Collaborative

Balanced scorecard development team

Executive leadership team

Crossfunctional core teams

In 2002, a Balanced Scorecard Software Selection Committee was created to select a

With the implementation of Performancesoft, Media General was able to automate a

Alignment across the Enterprise

Employee Communication Program

Media General recognized the importance of a strong communications program in

 Brochures describing how the balanced scorecard affected each employee;

 Green: met or exceeded target;

Employee Performance Measurement

Source: Company records.

Source: Company records.

Fiscal Years Ended

Revenues $ 900,420 $ 837,423 $ 831,582

Gain on sale of operations (net of income taxes of $3,860 in 2003) - 6,754 -

Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle (net of income tax

Source: Media General 2004 Annual Report.

Media General Consolidated Balance Sheets

Total assets $ 2,368,812 $ 2,386,755

LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY

Common stock, par value $5 per share:

Total liabilities and stockholders' equity 2,368,812 2,386,755

Source: Company records.

Jun 2000 Jun 2001 Jun 2003

Jan 2001 Complete

Interactive Media Division Scorecard

Support Group Scorecards System Selection and System Rollout and

Step 1 Scorecard Software System

Source: Company records.

Balanced Cross Executive

Staff Knowledgeable of Business

Source: Company records.

You might also like