Posted on 09/22/2010 7:05:17 AM PDT by jimbo123
The New York Times Company just issued a disappointing outlook for Q3.
None of the news is good, but the worst part is that the company's circulation revenue, which held the ship together through the bust, is starting to break down.
Here are the highlights:
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Wow. Does Ubama have to time to force through a bailout before he loses Congress?
They could turn the whole thing around by abandoning the leftist spin racket and taking America’s side, instead of our enemies. Or..a REAl investigation into Obama’s background,thuggery and marxism could do the trick too. But alas..they won’t do it. It isn’t about the truth anymore.... their own marxist ideology and anti american drivel trumps everything at the NYT.
A story on how leftist/dem groups are hiring people to make signs that look homemade would be a good first installment... Wonder why there's a lack of interest in exposing dems? Odd. /s
No time for a bailout. So Pinch is going to have to do 2 things:
1. Increase subscription and newsstand prices for their remaining readers
2. Cut costs (liberal reporters and union printers/truck drivers jobs and benefits)
One of my favorite ideas is to assign two ideologically opposite reporters to most stories. Write two stories for each news event. Allow people to compare:
A) He was good boy, turning his life around, an honor roll student. He was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, and that's why he shot those three people.
B) He was a gang member, with 15 arrests by the time he was 16. He'd been acquitted of murder last year after a witness was intimidated. And then he broke into that drug house, shot three people and stole the drugs and money.
Let people see the news event in two different ways. The newspaper would almost be like a mystery novel -- "Which story do you believe? Who's really guilty?" It would make the paper a lot of fun, and much mor einformative.
WSJ is doing ok, their circulation is going up. Obviously NYT didn't redistribute enough of their customer's wealth into their socialist pockets. They should try again, Laffer curve be damned. Their newspaper is an education lab they can test their leftist theories on, and next semester they get to learn all about bankruptcy law.
Yet.
If you’ve read one of Bernie Goldberg books on the subject, you know that the Obozo will embrace Austrian Economics before the leftist Columbia J-school slugs now infesting the media begin OBJECTIVELY REPORTING the news.
Let the New York Slimes slide on into the swamp out of which it crawled.
Funny idea...
Although printing both side of a story sounds like a very good idea, first off, the times would never hire anyone to the right of their house lefty, “Crease pants” Brooks.
His ego would never survive, it would cost too much money and they would have to admit bias. Next, even if they offered offsetting views, the paper would have to expand which would also cost more money.
Although they could still devote 2,000 plus words to their favorite DNC pet projects, sadly, institutionally they could only give a mere 200 words for any nose holding right wing rebuttal. This too wouldn’t work, since it would be that much easier to see their inbred bias.
Instead, maybe one day soon they will simply give the keys to Carlos Slim who could quickly resell the bones to Rupert and make his capitalistic profit.
But then since Rupert is ramping up the Journal to compete with the Times in New York, maybe he’d ultimately refuse to buy the Times and cause them to go the way of the Philly Enquirer.
Circulation at the Slimes has been falling for at least the past decade. In real (i.e. inflation adjusted terms), circulation revenue is lower now than it was during the 1950's.
How bout this idea.....just fire all the leftist/marxist/dem shills and replace them with objective reporters....lol.
Just sell it for a Dollar..only old people read a newspaper..
Pinch Sulzberger, the head lefty, has been running the Times into the ground for the last 10 years. If his family money did not own the Times, he would have been gone years ago. Carlos Slim’s biggest mistake in throwing his money away supporting the Times was not insisting that the incompetent running it begone as a contingency for “investing” in the dinosaur.
Here’s to an early demise, you bird cage-lining liberal piece of sh*t.
Such a pity...
“but the worst part is that the company’s circulation revenue, which held the ship together through the bust,”
I am certainly NOT rooting for PravdaOnTheHudson, but it has NOT been true, for a long time - for any major newspaper - that “circulation revenue” has been a financial sustaining feature of their operations.
What is the real issue that comes declining “circulation revenue”? Is it the “revenue”. No. It’s the circulation - the number of buying readers - itself.
The critical issue of “circulation” is the circulation numbers themselves. Those numbers help determine how much a newspaper can get from its advertisers - its main source of revenue. When circulation numbers drop, the advertisers know they are not reaching as many readers and they either want their ad rates lowered or they want to drop their ad altogether.
If “circulation revenue” is down, or projected to be down, you can bet that “circulation” itself is down, or projected to be down, and that - not the revenue from circulation - is the critical part of the story.
Good riddance to bad garbage.
Old people don’t have a dollar. Give it to the rest homes.
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.