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 ...
You forgot halliburton.
LOL!!!!
You are soooooooooooooo right.
I hope the Times institutes it's 'Times Select' policy on the entire paper as a revenue generating idea.
Banish them all to the 'ghetto' as Kaus calls it.
No. It says the Times reported....
KANE
You're right. We did lose a million
dollars last year.
Thatcher thinks maybe the point has registered.
KANE
We expect to lost a million next
year, too. You know, Mr. Thatcher -
(starts tapping
quietly)
at the rate of a million a year -
we'll have to close this place in
sixty years.
-Citizen Kane
I suspect the Times has very deep pockets.
Prophets without profits. I like it.
We're losing money and we don't deserve to because we are the progressive intellectuals.
he he he
Top line revenue up, but net earnings down means that they did the correct thing in cutting staff. It's a competitive environment, especially with Internet news outlets grabbing market share.
''If I want to say - with my words or dollars - that you are unpatriotic swine, that’s my free speech, too.'' - Jonah Goldberg
America is speaking to the NYTIMES, with words and dollars.
How SWEET it is!
Note to NY Times stockholders. Hire me as chief of all departments and I'll have you back in the money!
Profits follow product quality.
GOOD.
I wish I could take some of the credit. But I cancelled my subscription to the New York Times owned local liberal rag many years ago. It's a big mistake to pay the salaries of the people who wish to destroy your liberty.
"I'd argue that the NYT from day one was owned by liberals."
Good point! When did the NYT originate?
Oh how sad...
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.