Posted on 08/08/2007 1:16:22 AM PDT by bruinbirdman
Rupert Murdoch has targeted The New York Times. And the timing couldn't be worse for the Gray Lady.
The past few years have been rough. The Times has suffered the lies of Jason Blair the ouster of Howell Raines and the tribulations of Judy Miller. The White House hates the paper and says so publicly.
Then there's the share price, down 6% year-to-date and 47% during the past five years as Chairman and Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. strains to convince Wall Street that he has a plan for success in this digital age.
Still, the Times remains for many the nation's newspaper of record. Could deep-pocketed Rupert Murdoch give it a run for the title?
Murdoch, who has a definitive agreement to acquire Dow Jones & Co. (nyse: DJ) and The Wall Street Journal, has already talked about beefing up political coverage. How hard would it be for the owner of Fox Sports to add daily box scores? Or a real crossword puzzle? Indeed, The Wall Street Journal's transformation under Murdoch could draw inspiration from the Times' own innovations under former Executive Editor A.M. Rosenthal, who helped establish the Times as a truly national paper by broadening its appeal in the '70s and '80s with expanded coverage of sports, fashion and the arts.
Audacious, to be sure. But the Journal is already dealing from a position of strength, boasting average daily circulation of 2.06 million during the six months ended March 31, up six-tenths of a percent from the same period last year, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations. That was 84% greater than the Times' circulation of 1.12 million, which was down 1.9% from a year earlier.
The Journal also has a formidable distribution network that enables it to provide same-day office and home delivery to readers in major metropolitan markets and points in between. Then there's Fox News, a new business news channel and the rest of News Corp.'s (nyse: NWS) multimedia empire that could also help expand the paper's readership.
The Times needs its national readership more than ever. Its market share in the New York metropolitan area has shrunk to 24% from 29% five years ago, according to Scarborough Research. As a result, the Times' circulation in the New York metropolitan area now accounts for only 48% of its overall weekday circulation and 44% of Sunday circulation, down from 58% and 53%, respectively, five years ago.
There are already challenges on the national advertising front. According to TNS Media Intelligence, the Times held a commanding 49.6% share of all national advertising in 2006 among leading national newspapers, including Gannett's (nyse: GCI) USA Today and the Journal. But that was down from 50.3% in 2005 and 51.8% in 2004.
The Times' ability to respond to these challenges is constrained because it's become a virtual pure play in the newspaper business, relying on the Times and The Boston Globe for the lion's share of its revenue. Dow Jones and the Journal were also heavily reliant on newspaper revenue until last week. Now it's a rounding error in the war chest of News Corp. and its $25 billion-plus in annual revenue.
Where does the Times go from here? Sulzberger and President and Chief Executive Janet Robinson weren't available for comment. But they've said they're not interested in selling, or changing management or taking the company private.
What they are interested in is growing the company's digital properties, including About.com, which it acquired in 2005 for $410 million. Despite being the fastest-growing part of the business, up 23.4% from a year earlier, revenues from About.com, NYTimes.com, Boston.com and the company's other Web properties totaled only $80.9 million in the second quarter, accounting for just 10.3% of the company's total June quarter revenue of $788.9 million. NYTimes.com is suffering from stagnating traffic, having pulled in 7.5 million unique visitors in June, slipping 7% from May and down 13% from a year earlier, according to comScore.
To attract big-budget lifestyle advertisers, the New York Times Co. (nyse: NYT) continues to develop glossy magazine-style inserts for the print editions of the Times and the Globe. It is enhancing NYTimes.com with beefed-up travel, entertainment and real estate sections. It is developing ways to reach readers on their cellphones and has been making minor acquisitions, such as its purchase in May of ConsumerSearch.com for $33 million.
In addition, it has been cleaning up its balance sheet by shedding assets, such as by selling its TV station holdings in May for $575 million and its 50% stake in Discovery Times Channel last October for $100 million. And it has continued to cut costs, with a total of $230 million in cost savings expected in 2008 and 2009.
Still, none of this has convinced Wall Street. Perhaps it isn't too late for the Times Co. to follow the lead of the the Washington Post Co. (nyse: WPO), publisher of the only other paper that rivals the influence of the Times or the Journal. These days it's "a diversified media and education company," generating more than twice as much operating income from its rapidly growing Kaplan education subsidiary than its newspaper business. Sure doesn't sound sexy. But it does pay the bills.
The Times needs to give up the ghost.
They will always have the liberal elitists as stalwarts but
mass appeal is gone.
I don’t believe this will be such a big deal to their
liberal subscribers.
Fighting for an increasing share of a decreasing market.
Re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Pretty much the same thing.
Good.
Whenever one of these "alternative weeklies" does that, they start with an editorial showing how not charging is a sign of how healthy the paper is.
[Sulzberger and President and Chief Executive Janet Robinson weren’t available for comment.]
..and just how would the Times handle ‘not available for comment’ if used by the Bush Administration?
What Is the Bush Administration Hiding?
Bush Administration A Secret Society?
Bush Refuses To Answer To Public.
Bush Acting Like A Dictator..Refusing Inquires.
Bush Arrogance Displayed...Remains Silent And Secretive.
Blah..Blah...and Blah
The NYT has some media properties in rural Amerca. I predict that will be the next to go. And this is a good opportunity for conservative media to move in.
The NYT doesn’t understansd the rural America market, the writers are awful and its left wing philosopy is a square peg in a round hole in middle America.
You just can’t import NY City non-values, PC and left wing whining into rural America. You will lose everytime. The Times doesn’t understand this and never will. Its egomaniacal arrogance gets in the way.
and she did the hard, she EARNED it...
A NY Times Haiku by EQAndyBuzz
Liberal Rag Sheet
Not worth lining bird cage with
Bye Bye NY Times
I sure hope the WSJ increases its general-news coverage. We miss the morning paper, and actually got the Journal delivered for a while, but there wasn’t enough news of interest to make our subscription worthwhile. If the WSJ becomes a national conservative-oriented paper, I expect it will do very well against USA Today and the NYSlimes.
Then there is Forbes.....
Since the ongoing discussion of the Dow Jones aquisition that includes the Wall Street Journal it occurred to me that there was perhaps an earlier attempt by Murdoch to aquire a family financial publishing house, namely Forbes.
It turned out differently however because instead of outright ownership, I suspect it evolved into a sort of joint venture. That is, News Corp and Forbes have a joint venture to at a minimum work together to produce Saturday morning programming. Forbes provides it’s heavy hitters and content and News Corp provideds the outlet.
Steve Forbes appears fairly regularly on Fox News and Forbes has favorable articles and a t least a double page Fox News ad in every issue.
When we consider the synergy of Fox News with Neil Cavuto in the lead, the fantastic financial news gathering ability at Wall Street Journal, the writing and editorial talent at Forbes, the comboned web strengths of all three, the world is changed.
The old gray whore and all her sisters will bow down to the new king of the hill
Lastly, Steve Forbes, a rock ribbed, genuine dyed in the wool, tax and healthcate reforming conservative is a powerful Rudy man.
If Rudy is good enough for Steve...... (pay attention FReepers)
Disclaimer.....I supported Forbes in 2000 but am presently still making up my mind
Propaganda is sooooooo boring. Who bothers to read old issues of Pravda under the Soviets?
Leftist pretentions and self-importance are so corny when viewed through the lens of Truth.
"Newspaper of record"! What a hoot!
Or maybe, Diane Feinstein can expand her "Fairness Doctrine" to require all newspapers to include a blurb from the Times and the Globe on every page.
Or--if all else fails--they could call in Connie Chung to save them.
The NYT is not a newspaper. It is a daily marketing slick styled to look like a newspaper.
The NYT does not in an of itself need to be profitable. The DNC will indirectly ensure that its staff of ad copy writers and pitchmen are well compensated.
Look for investors who keep investing (subsidizing) while NYT stock continues to plummet and you have found the dark matter of the NYT marketing firm revenue stream.
Many!?
As in many of the surviving members of Sha Na Na?
many of the after 1:00am crowd and O'Seah's Bar and Grill on Long Island?
many of the Benedict Arnold sisterhood?
BWHAAAAHAAAHAAA [gasp] BWHAAAAHAAAHAAA
I'm sending this to one-liners.com
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.