You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front Economy
New York Times Company Posts Loss (Big-Time)
2008-04-18

The New York Times Company, the parent of The New York Times, posted a $335,000 loss in the first quarter — one of the worst periods the company and the newspaper industry have seen — falling far short of both analysts’ expectations and its $23.9 million profit in the quarter a year earlier.
sure, all newspapers have had that bad of decline....stats to back that up?
The company did break even on a per-share basis, compared with the average analyst forecast of earnings of 14 cents, down from 17 cents in the first quarter of 2007.

The companyÂ’s main source of revenue, newspaper advertising in print and online, fell 10.6 percent, the sharpest drop in memory, as the industry suffers the twin blows of an economic downturn and the continuing long-term shift of readers and advertisers to the Internet.
economic downturn they've done their damndest to spur for political reasons? Karma, bitch
In a conference call with analysts, Janet L. Robinson, president and chief executive, said it was “a challenging quarter, one that showed the effects of a weaker economy,” compounded by “a marketplace that has been reconfigured technologically, economically and geographically.”
"I'm looking for a golden, not leaden, parachute"
Looking ahead, she said, “We see continued challenges for print advertising in a faltering economy.”
"that we helped cause"
The poor showing stemmed from The Times CompanyÂ’s core news media group, which includes The Times, The Boston Globe and The International Herald Tribune, as well as several regional newspapers.
"that don't have subscribers"
Excluding the $18.3 million charge, depreciation and amortization, the unit reported an operating profit of $68.5 million for the quarter, down from $99.4 million in the period a year earlier.

The groupÂ’s revenue dropped 5.7 percent, driven by the 10.6 percent decline in advertising revenue. But it also recorded a 1.9 percent increase in circulation revenue, after the company raised the prices of newspapers like The Times and The Globe.
see? raising prices, like raising taxes, works! Until the voluntary subscribers drop off, unlike involuntary taxpayers...oops
Posted by:Frank G

#20  so funny how they can't admit the real reason they are failing: they treated their readers like a dog treats a fire hydrant.

They've champion the economic downturn as their excuse. But the economy isn't so bad that people can't afford a $4.00 cups of coffee. So let's be honest, that really isn't the reason no one reads them anymore.

We've all turned to the internet, it is true. But the REASON we turned to the internet was because their paper was nothing more than agenda driven propaganda that made the assumption that we were so stupid we would actually believe the lies they print.

Cost of transportation has gone up and they can also claim credit for that since they worked hard to assure that we can't build power plants or drill in the US for oil.

Adios NYT. You willfully slit your own throat.
Posted by: Woodrow Slusorong7967   2008-04-18 18:19  

#19  thanks TW: shows how much time i really spend watching CBS

(person opinion: i still think it will happen, quietly on late friday afternoons, when the rest of the press corps is bellied up to the bar)
Posted by: USN,Ret.   2008-04-18 17:10  

#18  Besoeker: Every cloud has a silver lining

In this case, the silver lining comes with a cloud: The NYT will probably live on in some other form. Hopefully worm food, but at least they should be scattered to the four winds where they won't be able to support each other so much.
Posted by: gorb   2008-04-18 17:04  

#17  Maybe, just maybe, when Pinch and the rest of the Sulzberger clan get tossed out on their ear, the NYT might come back to earth-based reality. Problem with that is it might well be too late. As it is, their brand name has been all but fatally tainted by their last 50 years of pure liberal BS. Recovering from that won't be easy.
Posted by: Thaimble Scourge of the Pixies4707   2008-04-18 16:56  

#16  CBS announced yesterday they won't be downsizing or outsourcing to CNN. That was an over-excited rumour mill, it seems... or they had to back off when the news got out.
Posted by: trailing wife    2008-04-18 15:41  

#15  Re: #10, the stringer thingy is already in work it appears @ CBS with their comment about subbing out the reporting to CNN, so that consolidation ( outsourcing) looks to be already underway. Only bad part about that is that there wil be fewer sets of eyes on any one event so the report(s) will all look the same. but if circulation of the printed media is dropping and it appears that the TV news is also that may not be a bad thing.
Posted by: USN,Ret.   2008-04-18 14:50  

#14  " ... after a few more flashes in the pan, we shall hear very little more of Edison or his electric lamp.Every claim he makes has been tested and proved impracticable."

[New York Times, January 16,1880]
Posted by: OldSpook   2008-04-18 14:47  

#13  Now if we could just get rid of CBS...
Posted by: Abu Uluque   2008-04-18 12:20  

#12  Manolo! My salts!
And bring the limo around. I'll be drinking early today...
Posted by: Pinchy   2008-04-18 11:46  

#11  I have a basic question: How could it lose money in the Quarter, and still earn $.14 a share? Is the NYT trying to pull an Enron?

Al
Posted by: Frozen Al   2008-04-18 11:42  

#10  Newspapers are going to have to do what our local paper just did, an all local front page. The national and international news, what little they print, is back near the business section. They just can't compete for that market with the internet. But they can print coupons for my local food store. The savings from these will be sufficient to justify the continuing subscription cost.

The real fun will come when the papers start dropping their AP fees or drop the feed all together. The result is going to be fewer and fewer foreign correspondents and more and more stringers, like the moles who dominate ME reporting. At some point, it will become clear to all that the AP has no better grasp on what is going on in the world than Michael Yon or Iraq the Model.

We will all begin building our own correspondent networks from the bloggers we find credible. News will become much more decentralized, as is truth, and debatable. The final result will be an even more contentious discussion of what is happening in the world based on a far greater variety of sources with a much greater probability of understanding what is actually going on.

Ultimately, the high capital, high cost print media will probably be forced out of the local market as well, as the distinction between pres release and blog becomes further blurred. But that's in my son's lifetime, not mine.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2008-04-18 09:32  

#9  big jim

some people do like to read anti American stuff;

for example:
the gay playwrites association,
the faculty lounge group at UC Berkeley,and
the editor of Al Jazzera

so there is still a good sized niche for the NYTimes
Posted by: mhw   2008-04-18 08:43  

#8  They still don't get it. They'll never get it. People don't want to read about what a shitty country they think we have. They don't want to lose in Iraq, they don't want to pay $5 a gallon for gas and they don't want the EUnicks to run our country. But the Slimes don't get it, so I say go gentle into that good night.
Posted by: bigjim-ky   2008-04-18 08:26  

#7  The Grey Lady can't die fast enough.

All major MSM have been liberal cheerleaders and rooting for anything but what has made this country great. Mainly, free market and democracy. Now, I hope they all die off as the free market, what they championed against, brings down their end as people vote with their wallets.
Posted by: DarthVader   2008-04-18 07:48  

#6  They need a government bailout! They're at least as important to the country as Bear Stearns (or Chrysler, decades ago). I'm sure the Senate delegation from NY would concur.
Posted by: Menhadden Snogum6713   2008-04-18 07:46  

#5  The mills of the Gods, etc...
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2008-04-18 07:45  

#4  Every cloud has a silver lining.
Posted by: Besoeker   2008-04-18 07:42  

#3  I will not be happy until everyone who works at the NYT is on the pavement and totally ruined financially. That is what they wished for this country and they have lied their best to achieve it. Now it looks like that is about to happen, couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch. You all can rot in hell.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom   2008-04-18 04:05  

#2  Joe, not with the people who write and publish the American newspapers. They have lost the trust of their erstwhile readers and with that trust they have lost their place in American life. The papers can no longer be trusted to even attempt to be objective. The internet has allowed people to see how political the journalists and publishers are. If the facts don't support the agenda or storyline they are pushing, they just make up whatever facts are convenient. Worse, the internet has allowed people to see that many in that profession are some combination of stupid, lazy, or ignorant with a truly profound lack of understanding of the world in which we live. The papers have no future because the people that write and publish them have no respect for the people who used to read them.
Posted by: RWV   2008-04-18 01:16  

#1  At one time, RADIO competed wid something called TV for national-market dominance - despite seemingly losing, it still managed to remain a major and popular part of Americana [albeit
"niche"] up to the present day. CAN "PAPER/PRINT MEDIA" FIND ITS NICHE AND SUCCESSFULLY PREVAIL???
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2008-04-18 00:31  

00:00