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
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-45 next last

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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-45 next last

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