Posted on 12/24/2008 6:12:18 AM PST by abb
Earlier this month, executives at the New York Times (NYT) warned investors that they had a miserable November. They weren’t kidding.
The grim details are here, but I’ll save you some time:
* Revenue was down 13.9%, an acceleration from October’s 9.4% drop. * Ad revenue was down 20.9%, an acceleration from October’s 16.2% drop. * The really awful news: Internet ad revenue and overall Internet revenue actually declined in November, down 3.8% and 2.6%, respectively.
In the good old days of 2007, the Times could at least say that while print revenue growth was slowing to a halt, Internet ad sales were growing quickly. By last month, the best thing you could say about Internet revenue at the Times was that it was still growing.. a little bit. Now that’s gone, too.
For the record, the Times says that it was still able to register “moderate” display ad growth at its newspapers, but that its online classifieds and real estate ads had gotten crushed, for obvious reasons. And over at About.com, which until now has been the bright spot on the Times’ financials, display ads shrank, wiping out out “moderate” growth in cost-per click ads.
And expect more of the same in December and in 2009. Martin Nisenholtz, the Times digital boss, has already warned investors that the “softness in November” would “accelerate.. into December” and that “next year is going to be a different year, by a fairly profound margin.”
Per usual, the one bit of good news in the Times’ numbers is that its readers continue to value its publications enough to pay for them: Circulation revenues increased 4.2%. But if the Times can’t convince advertisers to pay, too, that’s not going to matter. Happy holidays!
Seventy-eight.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/393433_timespension24.html
Seattle Times freezing nonunion pensions
Action follows notice of unpaid week off; union workers excluded
Not likely, in my opinion. But that won’t prevent them from trying.Great news, but what are the odds of a Dinosaur Media Bailout bill, once the leftist politicians realize that their perennial enablers are in serious trouble?
We've been FReepmailing about The Creation of the Media by Paul Starr.The history Starr presents might make you less sanguine about that
(I told you there were some challenges in that book).
bump
I'm under no illusion whatsoever about the extent of the historical ties between the Drive-By Media and Organized Government. Organized Government = Organized Crime?
Larry Schweikart (LS) thinks the future of newspapers is that the political parties will subsidized and operate them as house organs as was done in the 1800's. My thinking is that we won't be able to tell the difference from how it is now, lol.
Please make me 79 - thanks.
http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reportsitem.aspx?id=100669
To Prepare for the Future, Skip the Present
‘… today’s obsession with saving newspapers has meant that, for the most part, media companies have failed to plan adequately for tomorrow’s digital future.’
Merry Christmas, abb and you are helping make it one :-)
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2008/tc20081223_783996.htm?campaign_id=yhoo
Online Journalism: Donations Accepted
Amid traditional media’s bloodletting, nonprofit news outfits like Spot.Us are experimenting with community-funded journalism on the Web
I wonder why ??? Could it be they are the terrorist within .
“Do you know to make your calls, and get your two-to-three sources?”
And who are these two or three reliable sources going to be? The NY times, The Washington Post, and the Boston Globe. That really amounts to one source.
In any case, would you rather learn “History” from a “classically trained educator” with a teaching certificate? Or from a historian with a modem?
Blogs open the door for people with specialized knowledge to comment on subjects that they’re interested in, bypassing the filter of sell-out journalists who have destroyed their own profession and livelihoods.
If H.L. Mencken were alive today he would be a net blogger with a modem.
http://boston.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2008/12/22/daily24.html?ana=yfcpc
Boston Globe ad revenue falls
It’s the Slimes’ own fault. They pushed for the anti-jobs, anti-business candidate....and now they have him.
Re-ping. Pinch and company searching sofa cushions for spare change to pay the credit card bill...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123015342844033457.html?mod=testMod
DECEMBER 24, 2008, 5:05 P.M. ET
New York Times Looks to Sell Red Sox Stake
By RUSSELL ADAMS
Seeking to fortify its core assets, New York Times Co. is actively shopping its stake in the holding company of the Boston Red Sox baseball club, according to two people familiar with the discussions.
The Times Co., which faces a cash shortage accelerated by steep industrywide revenue declines, has been rumored for months to be open to selling non-core assets. Besides its flagship newspaper, the Times Co. owns the Boston Globe, About.com and a 17.5% stake in New England Sports Ventures, which owns the Red Sox, their fabled ballpark Fenway Park and most of the cable network that airs their games.
The Times Co. pushed discussions beyond the exploration phase early last month at a quarterly meeting of NESV’s limited partners at which the Times Co. indicated to the partnership its intention to sell. Since then Times Co. has been pursuing potential buyers, according to people familiar with the discussions. A Times spokeswoman declined to comment.
It is unclear what the Times Co. thinks it can get for its stake. Barclays Capital estimates the Times Co.’s investment is worth about $166 million; analysts and sports bankers recently told Reuters the Times Co. could raise at least $200 million if it sold its stake.
The Times Co. acquired its stake in NESV when it joined John Henry in the hedge fund billionaire’s $700 million purchase of the Red Sox in 2002. It is the second largest shareholder behind Mr. Henry. The stake was supposed to shore up the Globe’s advertising position in New England by packaging the Globe with New England Sports Network, one of the most powerful television outlets in the region. But it wasn’t enough to stop the decline in advertisers and readers.
It’s possible that the Globe could be packaged with the sports assets in a sale; Jack Connors, a former ad executive in Boston, and former General Electric CEO Jack Welch took a serious look at the Globe two years ago, when people close to them said they were valuing it at $550-600 million at the time. The Times rebuffed the inquiries. The Globe was recently valued by Barclay’s at $20 million.
snip
Ouch.
This Sox sale was not unexpected. I didn't realize they could get upwards of 200 mil for the Sox. John Henry would probably buy them out. That's an asset that hasn't gone down.
Sounds like Pinch will make the 400 mil payment fairly easily. Even not being able to mortgage his building, he probably still legally can tap one of the NYT's 400 mil lines of credit. I know one of them hasn't been touched yet. Selling About.com may hurt, but may be necessary given the amount of money I've seen it's valuation at.
Pinch is going to make it through this first payment, it's the next one that is going to make or break the NYT company.
I don’t know when it happened but I just noticed day before yesterday that the Houston Chronicle has gotten smaller just like the NYT. I am laughing my butt off because if they both went broke it would serve them right.
might better keep the Sox, sell the paper...
I'm under no illusion whatsoever about the extent of the historical ties between the Drive-By Media and Organized Government. Organized Government = Organized Crime?The history Starr presents might make you less sanguine about that (I told you there were some challenges in that book).
Larry Schweikart (LS) thinks the future of newspapers is that the political parties will subsidized and operate them as house organs as was done in the 1800's. My thinking is that we won't be able to tell the difference from how it is now, lol.
Yes, after reading Starr I'll split the difference between the two of you - because Starr asserts that, contrary to my assumption, some Federalist newspapers did in fact assert a claim to objectivity.That being the case, you could both be right - Democratic newspapers might continue business as usual, and there might arise Republican newspapers which - like Jefferson's Democratic Republicans - do not make the claim of objectivity. That is actually the situation we have now - only, talk radio is what constitutes the "Republican newspapers."
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.