New York Times misses revenue forecast, shares tumble (Dinosaur Media DeathWatch™)

Reuters ^ | October 25, 2012 | Jennifer Saba

[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.

[txrefugee]

“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.

[darrellmaurina]

Sorry about the duplicate posts...

[ken5050]

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..

[ken5050]

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..

[abb]

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

[Obadiah]

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.

[Buckeye McFrog]

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.

[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.

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.

[Carry_Okie]

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.

[bert]

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.

[abb]

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.

[American Constitutionalist]

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.

[Zakeet]

...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.

[abb]

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.”

[niteowl]

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

[Zakeet]

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.

[AFPhys]

closed down 21% ...

I wonder if they wish they endorsed Romney

[Chode]

21%? four more days of that, and their Times will be up...

[zeestephen]

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.

[PGalt]

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

(ping)