Posted on 10/20/2005 9:29:21 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- New York Times Co. on Wednesday reported a 52% decline in third-quarter profit due to expenses related to job cuts announced earlier this year, as well as ongoing advertising weakness at its New England media properties.
New York Times said it took a pretax charge of $12.4 million related to a plan announced in May to eliminate about 200 positions. On an after-tax basis, the charge was $7.5 million, or 5 cents a share.
Including the charge, net income plunged to $23.1 million, or 16 cents a share, compared with a profit of $48.3 million or 33 cents a share in the year-ago period.
Revenue rose 2.2% to $791.1 million, topping the $787.8 million average estimate of analysts surveyed by Thomson First Call.
The company said it expects to take a charge of $35 million to $45 million over the next three quarters that's related to another round of layoffs announced in September.
Advertising revenue rose 4% to $518.2 million. Excluding About.com, the online information provider it recently acquired, ad revenue was only up 1.3%.
National- and retail-advertising sales were just about flat with the same quarter a year ago, said Janet Robinson, the company's chief executive, during a conference call with analysts.
As other newspaper companies have indicated, help-wanted and real-estate classified ads were "healthy," offsetting continued weakness in the automotive category. Overall, classified revenue rose 4%.
New York Times Co. said that a pattern of stronger ad growth at its smaller newspapers than its large markets continued in the third quarter.
Ad revenue at the New England Media Group, which includes the Boston Globe, declined 3% to $111.2 million, while circulation revenue fell 6% to $42.9 million. Lower ad sales reflected "continuing softness in the Boston economy," Robinson said in a statement.
(Excerpt) Read more at marketwatch.com ...
oh well....
a little sidenote- as was posted here, after it was leaked the Times would seek the adoption records for then SC nominee John Roberts about twenty of us called the Times all day to voice our displeasure.....of course it was the subscription line we were calling and complaining to...
Matches their drop in truthfulness........
schadenfreude.....
i wonder if this will affect their 1000ft building currently under construction.
Luckily this story isn't taken from the Times itself, so it's got a decent chance of being true.
I'd love to see this rag shut their doors. They have been spewing filthy leftist propaganda since the liberals took charge.
RIP.
Wasn't that sick?
I couldn't imagine the outrage had anybody dug into ginsburg's adoption records(for the sake of argument, she has some)
But yet Roberts..... that's perfectly acceptable.
The double standard still amazes me at times.
Sounds like REAL a "public opinion Poll" to me.
Nothing like getting sidelined in the information age while simulaneously losing in the war of ideas. Good for them.
Like, who wants to pay to read Krugman?
Yea! maybe they will go under altogether! Serves them right it does!!! Karma works!
Nothing like getting sidelined in the information age while simulaneously losing in the war of ideas. Good for them.
Like, who wants to pay to read Krugman?
Revenues are down because of the lack of more Abu-Ghraib material to "advertise" on the front page for another 47 days! /S
I'd argue that the NYT from day one was owned by liberals.
http://www.nationalreview.com/levin/levin200406011433.asp
Ignoring the real problem --- themselves.
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.