Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New York Times misses revenue forecast, shares tumble (Dinosaur Media DeathWatch™)
Reuters ^ | October 25, 2012 | Jennifer Saba

Posted on 10/25/2012 9:21:47 AM PDT by Zakeet

The New York Times Co reported worse-than-expected results on Thursday as advertisers cut spending on both print and digital outlets, sending shares down 12 percent.

The newspaper company said that revenue was up almost 1 percent to $449 million. Still, the result missed the analysts' consensus estimate of $479.23 million, according to Thomson Reuters I/B/E/S.

Adjusting for severance costs and other special items, the company reported a quarterly loss of 1 cent per share, well below expectations of earnings of 8 cents per share.

The slight uptick in revenue was due to a 7.4 percent rise in circulation revenue helped by the company's digital subscription plans.

But as the company tries to rely more on circulation for its revenue, advertising sales are in a persistent slump.

"It wasn't a nice quarter on revenue," said Edward Atorino, an analyst with Benchmark Co. "The advertising numbers look terrible. I thought they might do a little better. They are caught up in the downslide like everybody else."

The stock dropped 12 percent to $9.37 in morning trade.

[Snip]

The trend of declining national ad revenue was apparent at Gannett Co, the largest newspaper chain in the United States, and its national newspaper USA Today, a competitor to the Times.

While Gannett turned in better-than-expected results last week, national advertising, primarily through USA Today, was down almost 8 percent at its U.S. newspapers.

[Snip]

Once a sprawling media conglomerate, The New York Times has tightened its focus and shed assets. Over the past year, it sold a group of newspapers in the U.S. Southeast and in California, digital property About Group and stakes in sports ventures including the Boston Red Sox and Liverpool Soccer Club.

(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bias; dinomedia; media; msm; newyorktimes

Under my brilliant management, we're shedding readers and dropping ad revenues ... in the middle of a national election ... at a time when news junkies are gobbling up tons of information and candidates are spending gazillions of dollars ... and let me assure you always critical Freepers ... that ain't easy to do!

1 posted on 10/25/2012 9:21:50 AM PDT by Zakeet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

Love the smell of face palm in the morning.


2 posted on 10/25/2012 9:23:48 AM PDT by Enterprise ("Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abb

Pinch got punched and is in poo ... ping!

3 posted on 10/25/2012 9:26:03 AM PDT by Zakeet (Calling the Obozo/Bernack economy sluggish is an insult to slugs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 04-Bravo; aimhigh; andyandval; Arizona Carolyn; Bahbah; bert; bilhosty; Caipirabob; carmenbmw; ...

4 posted on 10/25/2012 9:29:33 AM PDT by abb ("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

Good to hear that the New York Times is following Newsweek’s fine example to going bankrupt....


5 posted on 10/25/2012 9:29:49 AM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

Here’s the numbers.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/york-times-company-reports-2012-123300879.html


6 posted on 10/25/2012 9:31:07 AM PDT by abb ("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet; Revolting cat!
The New York Times Co reported worse-than-expected results on Thursday...

Can't always believe what the NY Times reports.

7 posted on 10/25/2012 9:31:44 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (Obama likes to claim credit for getting Osama. Why hasn't he tried Khalid Sheikh Mohammed yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

LMAO!


8 posted on 10/25/2012 9:36:24 AM PDT by Scutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abb

ROTFLMAO!!!


9 posted on 10/25/2012 9:37:12 AM PDT by Scutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet
I'm stunned that anyone would believe the NYT forecasting any revenue.
10 posted on 10/25/2012 9:37:15 AM PDT by kevkrom (If a wise man has an argument with a foolish man, the fool only rages or laughs...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

11 posted on 10/25/2012 9:38:18 AM PDT by abb ("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet
The sooner the terminal national abscess called the NYTimes completely dies the sooner America will recover.
12 posted on 10/25/2012 9:40:30 AM PDT by Obadiah (The corrupt MSM is the enemy of the American people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abb

lol.

Like a punch to the face


13 posted on 10/25/2012 9:48:56 AM PDT by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/192927/circulation-and-advertising-revenues-down-at-mcclatchy/

Circulation and advertising revenues down at McClatchy


14 posted on 10/25/2012 9:49:24 AM PDT by abb ("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

Lets see- maybe people want actual NEWS from a supposed news source

These bozos said that Obama won all three debates... Would you PAY for that kind of quality work?


15 posted on 10/25/2012 10:02:13 AM PDT by Mr. K ("The only thing the World would hate more than the USA in charge is the USA NOT in charge")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Obadiah; abb; All
12 posted on Thu Oct 25 2012 11:40:30 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by Obadiah (The corrupt MSM is the enemy of the American people.): “The sooner the terminal national abscess called the NYTimes completely dies the sooner America will recover.”

I'm not disagreeing with your main point, but the fact is that all media are in trouble, particularly print, and the trouble crosses ideological lines. Even conservative newspapers like the Washington Times are having serious financial difficulties and laying off many reporters.

The advertiser-supported print media model that has operated since the early-to-mid-1800s clearly isn't working, and as readers migrate to the internet, nobody has yet figured out how to make enough money to support the kind of newsgathering staffs needed to run a major metro newspaper.

Here's the comment I posted on a newspaper trade group discussion board responding to a young journalism student wondering how to get a job in the current environment. I think it shows some of the problems inherent in technology shifts.
____

If (NAME DELETED) is still reading, she's seen from the variety of advice that journalism is in chaos, the old road maps often lead people into dead ends, and nobody has yet figured out whether the new roads now opening are going to end with driving off cliffs, landing in swamps or sand traps, or actually get drivers somewhere they want to go.

Michelle, I did read your profile. You're at a well-known journalism school and have prior background at your university's newspaper. I'm assuming you're asking here because you want “real world” advice in addition to what you're already getting from professors.

The old career paths of journalism for the last half-century or so have been either:

1) go to J-school, write for the school newspaper, do internships, and use your clips to get your first job at a small newspaper in a big chain so you could get promoted to a larger newspaper, often in the same chain, or

2) for mid-career people, leverage in-depth knowledge of your current career into a specialist beat position by learning how to write and demonstrating your ability to write, either with freelance work or with a masters degree from a J-school, or

3) for people at both early and mid-career stages, get freelance jobs at a local newspaper unrelated to your current employment and try to convince an editor to turn your part-time or free work into a full-time job.

As those three options (and some comments above) show, lots of reporters learned technical skills of how to write but didn't know their communities or their subjects very well. People moved from small newspapers to large newspapers and typically didn't develop in-depth knowledge of their communities. The result has been that people who were subject matter experts in certain fields, or who knew their communities very well, could provide an asset to an editor that someone with a traditional journalism school education quite often could not.

Go back to your journalism history to see how newspapers looked in the days of the Pulitzers, the Hearsts, etc... it was anything but the professional model we've seen starting to develop in the early 1900s which became dominant in the post-WW2 era.

Except for the very oldest reporters living today, we've grown up in an environment where economics of scale had pretty much driven competition out of the print media and made it financially impossible to start a brand-new newspaper in a major city without massive infusion of capital. I can't think of any papers except the Washington Times and USA Today in the last four decades where that happened successfully, and though there may be some others, I trust it's obvious that economics allowed large newspapers and large newspaper chains to create standards of professional practices, education, and training for journalists which, while certainly not mandatory, became a general model for metro newspapers and have been at least a goal for smaller newspapers.

Most of that has radically changed in the last decade. The same economics of scale which once made large newspapers impossible to compete against are now driving those large newspapers out of business, and making it quite realistic for startup operations to effectively compete against traditional newsgathering operations. Something like Politico or Huffington Post or local media like the St. Louis Beacon would have been unthinkable in the 1980s. While those are professional operations, literally anyone with no training can start writing and try to get an audience, and in some cases may succeed.

Where does that leave us? I don't think any of us know for sure. What I do know is that many of the old rules simply don't work anymore, and you need to know up front that you're going into a line of work with no safe road maps.

That can be exciting or it can be scary. Either way, it's not for the naive or the fainthearted. Make sure you know what you're doing before you start, and be prepared to take risks.

16 posted on 10/25/2012 10:12:04 AM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Obadiah; abb; All
12 posted on Thu Oct 25 2012 11:40:30 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by Obadiah (The corrupt MSM is the enemy of the American people.): “The sooner the terminal national abscess called the NYTimes completely dies the sooner America will recover.”

I'm not disagreeing with your main point, but the fact is that all media are in trouble, particularly print, and the trouble crosses ideological lines. Even conservative newspapers like the Washington Times are having serious financial difficulties and laying off many reporters.

The advertiser-supported print media model that has operated since the early-to-mid-1800s clearly isn't working, and as readers migrate to the internet, nobody has yet figured out how to make enough money to support the kind of newsgathering staffs needed to run a major metro newspaper.

Here's the comment I posted on a newspaper trade group discussion board responding to a young journalism student wondering how to get a job in the current environment. I think it shows some of the problems inherent in technology shifts.
____

If (NAME DELETED) is still reading, she's seen from the variety of advice that journalism is in chaos, the old road maps often lead people into dead ends, and nobody has yet figured out whether the new roads now opening are going to end with driving off cliffs, landing in swamps or sand traps, or actually get drivers somewhere they want to go.

Michelle, I did read your profile. You're at a well-known journalism school and have prior background at your university's newspaper. I'm assuming you're asking here because you want “real world” advice in addition to what you're already getting from professors.

The old career paths of journalism for the last half-century or so have been either:

1) go to J-school, write for the school newspaper, do internships, and use your clips to get your first job at a small newspaper in a big chain so you could get promoted to a larger newspaper, often in the same chain, or

2) for mid-career people, leverage in-depth knowledge of your current career into a specialist beat position by learning how to write and demonstrating your ability to write, either with freelance work or with a masters degree from a J-school, or

3) for people at both early and mid-career stages, get freelance jobs at a local newspaper unrelated to your current employment and try to convince an editor to turn your part-time or free work into a full-time job.

As those three options (and some comments above) show, lots of reporters learned technical skills of how to write but didn't know their communities or their subjects very well. People moved from small newspapers to large newspapers and typically didn't develop in-depth knowledge of their communities. The result has been that people who were subject matter experts in certain fields, or who knew their communities very well, could provide an asset to an editor that someone with a traditional journalism school education quite often could not.

Go back to your journalism history to see how newspapers looked in the days of the Pulitzers, the Hearsts, etc... it was anything but the professional model we've seen starting to develop in the early 1900s which became dominant in the post-WW2 era.

Except for the very oldest reporters living today, we've grown up in an environment where economics of scale had pretty much driven competition out of the print media and made it financially impossible to start a brand-new newspaper in a major city without massive infusion of capital. I can't think of any papers except the Washington Times and USA Today in the last four decades where that happened successfully, and though there may be some others, I trust it's obvious that economics allowed large newspapers and large newspaper chains to create standards of professional practices, education, and training for journalists which, while certainly not mandatory, became a general model for metro newspapers and have been at least a goal for smaller newspapers.

Most of that has radically changed in the last decade. The same economics of scale which once made large newspapers impossible to compete against are now driving those large newspapers out of business, and making it quite realistic for startup operations to effectively compete against traditional newsgathering operations. Something like Politico or Huffington Post or local media like the St. Louis Beacon would have been unthinkable in the 1980s. While those are professional operations, literally anyone with no training can start writing and try to get an audience, and in some cases may succeed.

Where does that leave us? I don't think any of us know for sure. What I do know is that many of the old rules simply don't work anymore, and you need to know up front that you're going into a line of work with no safe road maps.

That can be exciting or it can be scary. Either way, it's not for the naive or the fainthearted. Make sure you know what you're doing before you start, and be prepared to take risks.

17 posted on 10/25/2012 10:13:01 AM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Obadiah; abb; All
12 posted on Thu Oct 25 2012 11:40:30 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by Obadiah (The corrupt MSM is the enemy of the American people.): “The sooner the terminal national abscess called the NYTimes completely dies the sooner America will recover.”

I'm not disagreeing with your main point, but the fact is that all media are in trouble, particularly print, and the trouble crosses ideological lines. Even conservative newspapers like the Washington Times are having serious financial difficulties and laying off many reporters.

The advertiser-supported print media model that has operated since the early-to-mid-1800s clearly isn't working, and as readers migrate to the internet, nobody has yet figured out how to make enough money to support the kind of newsgathering staffs needed to run a major metro newspaper.

Here's the comment I posted on a newspaper trade group discussion board responding to a young journalism student wondering how to get a job in the current environment. I think it shows some of the problems inherent in technology shifts.
____

If (NAME DELETED) is still reading, she's seen from the variety of advice that journalism is in chaos, the old road maps often lead people into dead ends, and nobody has yet figured out whether the new roads now opening are going to end with driving off cliffs, landing in swamps or sand traps, or actually get drivers somewhere they want to go.

Michelle, I did read your profile. You're at a well-known journalism school and have prior background at your university's newspaper. I'm assuming you're asking here because you want “real world” advice in addition to what you're already getting from professors.

The old career paths of journalism for the last half-century or so have been either:

1) go to J-school, write for the school newspaper, do internships, and use your clips to get your first job at a small newspaper in a big chain so you could get promoted to a larger newspaper, often in the same chain, or

2) for mid-career people, leverage in-depth knowledge of your current career into a specialist beat position by learning how to write and demonstrating your ability to write, either with freelance work or with a masters degree from a J-school, or

3) for people at both early and mid-career stages, get freelance jobs at a local newspaper unrelated to your current employment and try to convince an editor to turn your part-time or free work into a full-time job.

As those three options (and some comments above) show, lots of reporters learned technical skills of how to write but didn't know their communities or their subjects very well. People moved from small newspapers to large newspapers and typically didn't develop in-depth knowledge of their communities. The result has been that people who were subject matter experts in certain fields, or who knew their communities very well, could provide an asset to an editor that someone with a traditional journalism school education quite often could not.

Go back to your journalism history to see how newspapers looked in the days of the Pulitzers, the Hearsts, etc... it was anything but the professional model we've seen starting to develop in the early 1900s which became dominant in the post-WW2 era.

Except for the very oldest reporters living today, we've grown up in an environment where economics of scale had pretty much driven competition out of the print media and made it financially impossible to start a brand-new newspaper in a major city without massive infusion of capital. I can't think of any papers except the Washington Times and USA Today in the last four decades where that happened successfully, and though there may be some others, I trust it's obvious that economics allowed large newspapers and large newspaper chains to create standards of professional practices, education, and training for journalists which, while certainly not mandatory, became a general model for metro newspapers and have been at least a goal for smaller newspapers.

Most of that has radically changed in the last decade. The same economics of scale which once made large newspapers impossible to compete against are now driving those large newspapers out of business, and making it quite realistic for startup operations to effectively compete against traditional newsgathering operations. Something like Politico or Huffington Post or local media like the St. Louis Beacon would have been unthinkable in the 1980s. While those are professional operations, literally anyone with no training can start writing and try to get an audience, and in some cases may succeed.

Where does that leave us? I don't think any of us know for sure. What I do know is that many of the old rules simply don't work anymore, and you need to know up front that you're going into a line of work with no safe road maps.

That can be exciting or it can be scary. Either way, it's not for the naive or the fainthearted. Make sure you know what you're doing before you start, and be prepared to take risks.

18 posted on 10/25/2012 10:13:22 AM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet
The owners of the NYT do not need the paper to be profitable in order to make buckets of money out of owning it. The power to manipulate stock prices with news makes it worth the investment.

Get it out of your head that just because the paper is losing money that it will go away.

19 posted on 10/25/2012 10:13:34 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (Islam offers us choices: convert or kill, submit or die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abb
There was a story a few days ago that Murdoch is looking at buying the Chicago Trib and the LA Times..there are no other real buyers, and he can probably get them at a really cheap. This, with the WSJ puts him on the path to a national newspaper..and it wouldn't surprise me if he can also grab the WaPo..This makes the Times supposed vision of a national paper..for advertisers..essentially worthless.

Or, the stories about buying the Trib and the LA Times could all be a feint, designed to force the heirs to sell the Times to Murdoch. Remember, there has been no dividend for almost 4 years..so lots of people in the family are hurting, and the stock price is down 90% from 10 years ago..

It's a $9/share now..no real upside prospects..and there's not much left to sell off. I wonder if an offer of $15/share..cash would crack open the voting trusts...Rupert did it with the Bancrofts..got them to sell the WSJ..

20 posted on 10/25/2012 10:20:19 AM PDT by ken5050 (Another reason to vote for Mitt: The Mormon Tabernacle Choir will perform at the WH Christmas party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

“The power to manipulate stock prices with news makes it worth the investment.”

...which is why there are virtually no retail investors in today’s stock market. It’s a rigged game, and everyone knows it.


21 posted on 10/25/2012 10:20:31 AM PDT by txrefugee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: All

Sorry about the duplicate posts...


22 posted on 10/25/2012 10:20:40 AM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: abb
There was a story a few days ago that Murdoch is looking at buying the Chicago Trib and the LA Times..there are no other real buyers, and he can probably get them at a really cheap. This, with the WSJ puts him on the path to a national newspaper..and it wouldn't surprise me if he can also grab the WaPo..This makes the Times supposed vision of a national paper..for advertisers..essentially worthless.

Or, the stories about buying the Trib and the LA Times could all be a feint, designed to force the heirs to sell the Times to Murdoch. Remember, there has been no dividend for almost 4 years..so lots of people in the family are hurting, and the stock price is down 90% from 10 years ago..

It's a $9/share now..no real upside prospects..and there's not much left to sell off. I wonder if an offer of $15/share..cash would crack open the voting trusts...Rupert did it with the Bancrofts..got them to sell the WSJ..

23 posted on 10/25/2012 10:22:52 AM PDT by ken5050 (Another reason to vote for Mitt: The Mormon Tabernacle Choir will perform at the WH Christmas party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: abb
There was a story a few days ago that Murdoch is looking at buying the Chicago Trib and the LA Times..there are no other real buyers, and he can probably get them at a really cheap. This, with the WSJ puts him on the path to a national newspaper..and it wouldn't surprise me if he can also grab the WaPo..This makes the Times supposed vision of a national paper..for advertisers..essentially worthless.

Or, the stories about buying the Trib and the LA Times could all be a feint, designed to force the heirs to sell the Times to Murdoch. Remember, there has been no dividend for almost 4 years..so lots of people in the family are hurting, and the stock price is down 90% from 10 years ago..

It's a $9/share now..no real upside prospects..and there's not much left to sell off. I wonder if an offer of $15/share..cash would crack open the voting trusts...Rupert did it with the Bancrofts..got them to sell the WSJ..

24 posted on 10/25/2012 10:22:52 AM PDT by ken5050 (Another reason to vote for Mitt: The Mormon Tabernacle Choir will perform at the WH Christmas party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ken5050

Talk about liberal heads exploding!!

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-murdoch-newspapers-20121020,0,6204152.story

Rupert Murdoch, other potential buyers eye L.A. Times

News Corp.’s Rupert Murdoch is said to be in early talks to buy the L.A. Times and the Chicago Tribune from Tribune Co.

http://www.niemanlab.org/2012/10/the-newsonomics-of-rupert-murdoch-american-publisher/

The newsonomics of Rupert Murdoch, American publisher


25 posted on 10/25/2012 10:36:06 AM PDT by abb ("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: darrellmaurina

I appreciate your reply. Whatever may come in the wake of the traditional media has to be better. I foresee legions of smaller reporting entities, much as described in the times of Pulitzer and Hearst. I think this is a good thing.

Over the past many decades as media consolidation took place there grew an arrogant based corrupt desire to push news. To influence rather than merely report. The MSM is now a collusive collection of corruption that actively seeks to tilt the axis of truth from its immutable moorings to abject relativism. It is a gift of mercy that this cancer is excised from the host.


26 posted on 10/25/2012 10:40:13 AM PDT by Obadiah (The corrupt MSM is the enemy of the American people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

Hence my theory that the MSM was 110% in the tank for Obama because in the near future they are going to be looking for a bailout.

Not looking too promising for them at the moment.


27 posted on 10/25/2012 10:48:55 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
The owners of the NYT do not need the paper to be profitable in order to make buckets of money out of owning it.

Pretty soon, without earning profits, all good things will come to an end. This truth I learned after talking to some of the former shareholders of General Motors, K-Mart, Chrysler, Sears, American Airlines, Enron, Kodak, Lehman Brothers, and many others.

The power to manipulate stock prices with news makes it worth the investment.

The SEC takes a dim view of stock price manipulation. Admittedly, their enforcement efforts have been somewhat lax in recent years, but they have been known to crack down from time to time and will undoubtedly do so again in the future. I submit that the Times is cognizant of that fact and is therefore reticent to engage in that practice.

Get it out of your head that just because the paper is losing money that it will go away.

Unless the Rag reverses its current slide, it will join the ranks of other large bankrupt newsers such as the Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Rocky Mountain News, the Los Angeles Times, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the Christian Science Monitor, Life Magazine, United Press International, U.S. News, and Newsweek. Admittedly, some have eventually emerged from reorganization (in every case after suffering a massive haircut and in most cases still struggling) but many have gone away ... for good. These organizations share one critical trait: they all lost money prior to their demise.

28 posted on 10/25/2012 11:26:04 AM PDT by Zakeet (Calling the Obozo/Bernack economy sluggish is an insult to slugs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet
I submit that the Times is cognizant of that fact and is therefore reticent to engage in that practice.

Not a chance. Pump and dump is the prime means by which legislators at all levels get rich.

29 posted on 10/25/2012 11:35:08 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (The Slave Party: advancing indenture since 1787.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist

I don’t think Newsweak actually went bankrupt. It was put up for sale and purchased for $1.

there was a very recent announcement that the print edition would cease I think at the end f the year.


30 posted on 10/25/2012 11:51:01 AM PDT by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 ..... Present failure and impending death yield irrational action))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2012/10/25/ny-times-co-explains-its-shockingly-weak-ad-results/
NY Times Co. Explains Its ‘Shockingly Weak’ Ad Results

...the more serious problem may be the fact that the Times Co. just can’t compete effectively in the game of selling mass audiences to advertisers. Warren cited “an abundance of inventory” and “efficient buying methods such as programmatic buying” offered by Google and Yahoo as forces driving down ad rates.


31 posted on 10/25/2012 11:59:21 AM PDT by abb ("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: bert
As long as they are going by the way of the Doo Doo Bird into irrelevancy I guess we don't care what we call it.

Bankruptcy.
Irrelevancy.


32 posted on 10/25/2012 11:59:44 AM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: abb
...the more serious problem may be the fact that the Times Co. just can’t compete effectively in the game of selling mass audiences to advertisers.

This is partially true.

The primary goal of advertising is to place your message in front of people who are willing to buy (or whom you can convince they should become willing to buy) the product you sell.

There are two ways to do this: (1) targeted marketing and (2) mass marketing. The former aims at a segment with given interests (e.g. motorcycling) and aims at attracting people in this segment that have a higher than average interest in purchasing your product (e.g. motorcycles). The latter is based on the theory that if you broadcast your pitch to enough people long enough and loud enough, somebody will eventually take the bait.

The problem with targeted marketing is that a significant percentage of the people who click on hyperlinks based on Google searches are actually involved in comparison shopping with a goal of making a near term purchase, while most people who buy a specific publication (e.g. motorcycle magazine) are not. Coupled with a far lower cost to reach those individuals via. search engines as opposed to four color ads, and the targeted marketing option has been taken away from the Newsers.

The situation is even more grim for mass marketing as audiences plummet, people dump subscriptions, and hit mute buttons on remote controls.

That is the primary reason underlying continuing demise the newser business ... they just can't compete effectively in selling either targeted markets or mass markets to advertisers.

33 posted on 10/25/2012 12:38:17 PM PDT by Zakeet (Calling the Obozo/Bernack economy sluggish is an insult to slugs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wanamaker

John Wanamaker (July 11, 1838 – December 12, 1922) was a United States merchant, religious leader, civic and political figure, considered by some to be the father of modern advertising and a “pioneer in marketing.”

Popular saying illustrating how difficult it was to reach potential customers using traditional advertising is attributed to John Wanamaker: “Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don’t know which half.”


34 posted on 10/25/2012 1:00:15 PM PDT by abb ("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

Looks like Al Reuters rushed this story out only half-way down the slide. NYT closed today at $8.31 (loss of 21.97% for the day).

ROFLMAO


35 posted on 10/25/2012 1:14:28 PM PDT by niteowl (Wisdom comes in two parts: 1) Having a lot to say, and 2) not saying it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abb
Popular saying illustrating how difficult it was to reach potential customers using traditional advertising is attributed to John Wanamaker: “Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don’t know which half.”

The truth is that at least 99 percent of the money spent on mass marketing is wasted. That's why it's rapidly disappearing for everything except: (1) saturation advertising [i.e. building and maintaining a widely recognized brand name such as a soft drink, beer, auto company, insurance company, etc.], and (2) reaching audiences otherwise unreachable by target marketing [e.g. if you have asbestosis, then contact this nice lawyer], and (3) directing uninformed individuals toward a targeted marketing source [e.g. we're a pill company who have an expensive wonder drug that you should try to convince your doctor to proscribe ... see our ad in Health News Magazine].

And that's why our newser friends are going broke. Money spent with them is largely wasted in most cases, more effective alternatives abound, and they are killing off their mass audiences.

36 posted on 10/25/2012 1:27:36 PM PDT by Zakeet (Calling the Obozo/Bernack economy sluggish is an insult to slugs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: abb

closed down 21% ...

I wonder if they wish they endorsed Romney


37 posted on 10/25/2012 1:51:09 PM PDT by AFPhys ((Praying for our troops, our citizens, that the Bible and Freedom become basis of the US law again))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet
21%? four more days of that, and their Times will be up...
38 posted on 10/25/2012 2:59:11 PM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet
NYT’s stock dropped about 22% from the previous day's close.

In dollar terms, the value of the company dropped around $350 million.

From $1.58 billion to around $1.2 billion.

39 posted on 10/25/2012 9:38:09 PM PDT by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abb; Zakeet; All; conservatism_IS_compassion

Thanks for the ping. Good news, good thread. Thanks to all posters.

(ping)


40 posted on 10/27/2012 2:32:16 PM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Chode

41 posted on 10/27/2012 3:30:46 PM PDT by abb ("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

They nearly hit their revenue estimate and completely blew their earnings estimate.

They must be giving all the money to Obama.


42 posted on 10/27/2012 3:33:02 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abb
LOLOLOL...!!!
43 posted on 10/27/2012 4:34:44 PM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Obadiah; abb; All
Thank you, Obadiah. (Now let's see if I can post this comment without it showing up multiple times!)

Here's something I added on the “Online Reporters and Editors” LinkedIn discussion board. I think it has specific relevance for a lot of us on Free Republic.

As the traditional media fall apart, frustrated conservative reporters with a bit of an entrepreneurial mindset have some **MAJOR** opportunities at the local level.

Let me make it crystal clear that I'm not defending blogging. I am painfully aware of the problems caused by untrained people who don't know what they're doing. My point is that blogs are filling in and doing the sort of work that competent reporters are no longer doing on the local level, and which conservatives who **DO** know what they are doing could be providing via a functional business model now that the monopoly of the traditional media has been broken.

The First Amendment exists for a reason. Those of us who value the Constitution need to remember those reasons, and act accordingly.
____

MY POST:

I do, however, think this is showing that the collapse of traditional media coverage of city councils, school boards, etc., isn't resulting in lack of attention but rather attention by bloggers who may or may not have agendas and whose agendas may or may not be obvious.

That sounds a lot like the media environment of the “Yellow Journalism” of the penny press days of the 1800s. We can object to what happened back then, but the reality is back then newspapers were being read and today they aren't.

My view is that we'd better take a long hard look at why newspapers today aren't working, compare ourselves to what was being done by newspapers earlier in media history when they did work, and learn from what the past has to teach us — both examples we can emulate and bad things we can learn to avoid.

Technological changes are the engine driving the collapse of tradition media, but they aren't the only factor. Technological changes simply allowed alternatives to break into what had become a monopoly market. We in the profession of journalism may not like those alternatives — and there are a lot of things that are quite correctly criticized about them — but we'd better figure out why people like the alternatives and figure out how to offer a better product or we aren't going to have jobs much longer.

44 posted on 10/28/2012 11:50:05 PM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: darrellmaurina

I’ll defend blogging. I do it every day - local news of school boards, city councils, and county commissions.

It ain’t that hard. Just about anyone that posts here can do it. All that’s required is basic command of the English language, the ability to string a coherent sentence together, and a few note taking skills.

The hard part is the commitment. Once you start, you must stay at it to build a readership. Nothing turns readers off quicker than to go to a blog with no new posts day after day.


45 posted on 10/29/2012 1:20:11 AM PDT by abb ("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson