Posted on 09/20/2005 2:19:20 PM PDT by Sprite518
NEW YORK -- The New York Times Co. said Tuesday it would cut 500 jobs, or about 4 percent of its work force, as part of an ongoing effort to reduce costs. The reductions come atop another 200 jobs that were cut earlier this year.
Continued fallout from the Red Sox victory in the World Series.
All is not well at Dow Jones, which owns WSJ, because tech/financial ad revenue declined.
Last week:
"Dow Jones Leads Newspaper Stocks Lower"
Tuesday September 13, [2005] 2:49 pm ET
Dow Jones Leads Newspaper Stocks Lower As UBS Downgrades the Company on Valuation Concerns
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050913/dow_jones_stock.html?.v=1
Last month, word got out that some members of the Bancroft family wanted to sell:
"Dow Jones soars on stake sale talk"
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9071-1736504,00.html
Now just go out of business please, Pinch ...
Trendlines don't look good for mainstream media:
credibility, subscriptions, jobs down.
Blogs, electronic forums, email, Internet skyrocketing.
And they think they're coming after us -- and the President.
What was their name again?
Well .. they think they're right!
Schade!!
LOL
In that case I'd recommend the L.A. Times. They say it's more absorbent and the print won't come off on your hands.
***.....Newspaper companies have been struggling with slow-growing advertising and a long-term decline in circulation amid changing media habits as more people go to the Internet for news...........***
Bump!
Funny, no mention of the brand new edifice that the Slime is building for itself (with a little Eminent Domain help from the city).
I had been led to believe that loss of circulation was the reason add revenues were off. The numbers show a circulation decline since 2002 that might be the reason .New numbers will be available for the 6 months ending in September and they might show a more precipitous rate of decline.
The link is here.
One wonders what was the cause for the decline in circulation. Jason blair was undoubtedly part of the problem. It seems the decline started before his May 2003 outing. While overall circulation has been in decline, "other" circulation has risen. One wonders if "other" circulation is anything like Enron earnings. Perhaps Sarbanes Oxley snared the old gray whore.
NY'er bump
Companies advertise to increase their bottom line not because they feel "guilty". No one was doing the NYT's a favor by advertising, they were doing business. Their ads produced customers. In hard times customers become more important, not less important. But businesses want bang for their buck and that's the problem.
The ads in the NYT's and other liberal MSM newspapers are not bringing in customers. In hard times you need more customers.
Why aren't the ads working? First, the demographics are off - newspapers are appealing to fewer and fewer people. Their readers of mostly "of habit" types. People who think breakfast always includes a cup of coffee and a paper. I'm one of those people. But every month I read less and less of the newspaper, and that means I see fewer and fewer ads. And young people? They're worse.
Here's the uncomfortable part: many newspapers read like in-house memos. The feeling is the writers write for each other and have no connection with us. No connection to anyone outside their limited liberal elite world. And that won't sell papers. Or ads.
So, to you newsmen and women, would you like to read a paper put out by plumbers who were basically only interested in plumbing and sometimes an article or two on building codes? Or a paper put out by the military that never dealt with your issues? The truth? Newspapers are boring. Inbred, incestuous, and boring. It's the Stepford writers. All the same. Everyday. In lockstep. Boring.
Not worth the price - even when the price is a dime or two.
And young people coming up are more complex than a liberal's idea of what a young person is. And if they don't read the paper, they don't look at what's on at the movies, and the movies will quit advertising. And that's now it works. You lose a demographic and you lose the people in that group who support that advertiser, then you lose that advertiser.
Companies advertise to increase their bottom line not because they feel "guilty". No one was doing the NYT's a favor by advertising, they were doing business. Their ads produced customers. In hard times customers become more important, not less important. But businesses want bang for their buck and that's the problem.
The ads in the NYT's and other liberal MSM newspapers are not bringing in customers. In hard times you need more customers.
Why aren't the ads working? First, the demographics are off - newspapers are appealing to fewer and fewer people. Their readers of mostly "of habit" types. People who think breakfast always includes a cup of coffee and a paper. I'm one of those people. But every month I read less and less of the newspaper, and that means I see fewer and fewer ads. And young people? They're worse.
Here's the uncomfortable part: many newspapers read like in-house memos. The feeling is the writers write for each other and have no connection with us. No connection to anyone outside their limited liberal elite world. And that won't sell papers. Or ads.
So, to you newsmen and women, would you like to read a paper put out by plumbers who were basically only interested in plumbing and sometimes an article or two on building codes? Or a paper put out by the military that never dealt with your issues? The truth? Newspapers are boring. Inbred, incestuous, and boring. It's the Stepford writers. All the same. Everyday. In lockstep. Boring.
Not worth the price - even when the price is a dime or two.
And young people coming up are more complex than a liberal's idea of what a young person is. And if they don't read the paper, they don't look at what's on at the movies, and the movies will quit advertising. And that's now it works. You lose a demographic and you lose the people in that group who support that advertiser, then you lose that advertiser.
..In hard times you need more customers...
I made the post to get a feel for loss of circulation and advertising. You made two references to hard times. There were no hard times across the country during this period.
.....And young people coming up are more complex than a liberal's idea of what a young person is......
This seems to be getting to the root of the matter. Young people don't read newspapers. In my neighborhood news paper subscribers can be identified by the yellow plastic box on their mail box. Only one "less than 35" family on the block gets the paper.
.....You lose a demographic and you lose the people in that group who support that advertiser, then you lose that advertiser.....
The conclusion is that a 5% drop in the New York Times circulation accompanied by some unknown but important decline in ad revenue is because old readers have died or because there is no appeal to produce young subscribers.
It's NOW's fault. By encouraging young women not to marry, the New York Times is going to fail.
Is Macy's going to advertise their "junior" clothes in the Times when the average woman reader is over 35? NO. Is Hollywood going to advertise in a large way when the average movie goer is under 30 and the average NYT"s reader is over 40? NO. Is the local Walmart going to advertise when the MSM hates Walmart? NO. Are conservatives going to buy the paper when they're insulted daily? NO. Are people who market goods to conservative families going to advertise in the Times? NO. The above groups still advertise in the NYT's - but soon they'll find better ways to connect to their customers. And then? Then it will be over...
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.