NY Times Ad Sales Weakened Due to War

Reuters ^ | March 28, 2003

[nwrep]

Reuters
NY Times Ad Sales Weakened by War
Friday March 28, 9:43 am ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The New York Times Co. (NYSE:NYT - News) said on Friday its advertising revenue has started to weaken because of the war in Iraq, although it expects first- quarter earnings to be within the range of Wall Street expectations.

"While advertising revenues for the quarter were in line with our expectations through the first two weeks of March, we have recently seen a weakening as a result of the war, particularly in travel-related categories such as airlines and hotels," said Chief Financial Official Leonard Forman.

The company expects first-quarter earnings to be between 42 cents a share and 45 cents a share. Analysts, on average expect the Times to have a profit of 43 cents a share, with a range of estimates between 40 cents and 46 cents according to earnings tracking firm Thomson First Call (News - Websites).

New York Times repeated its full year forecast of earnings growth in a mid-single-digit to low double-digit percentage range, but said a prolonged conflict in Iraq would hurt results.

[Eala]

Good news from Reuters for once. Though I'm sure they didn't mean it as such.

[SpottedBeaver]

Maybe they should look at which side of the fence they are sitting on to truly see why their ad revenue has weakened.

[appeal2]

Should read, "NY Times Ad Sales Down Due to Disgusting War Coverage." I recently cancelled my times subscription after 27 years. Their Anti-Semitic communistic agenda and the fact that they are a subsidiary of the demonicrat party finally got to me. Enough!!!

[Voltage]

I guess the Commy Front origanizations aren't taking out enough full page ads?

[wayoverontheright]

NY Times Ad Sales Weakened Due to (Stance on) War.

[Tribune7]

The New York Times Co. (NYSE:NYT - News) said on Friday its advertising revenue has started to weaken because of the war in Iraq,

Traditionally war increases newspaper circulation. I wonder why advertisers don't want to be associated with the NYT? :-)

[happygrl]

YAAAAYY!!!

[MinuteGal]

I just can't imagine freepers who've been registered here for over three months haven't cancelled or are just now cancelling their NYTs subscriptions.

Have our continuous exposes of the Slimes over the years been just chopped liver?

Arggggh.

Leni

[x1stcav]

yet more progress and success in the culture wars.

We're winning in Iraq and winning at home.

These are great times (no pun).

[snooker]

>>>NY Times Ad Sales Weakened Due to (Stance on) War.

somebody send the NYT a 'dixie chunk alert'.

snooker

[ImaGraftedBranch]

NY Times Ad Sales Weakened by War

Then, by all means, let's have a perpetual state of war until they no longer exist!

[RayChuang88]

Of course, it doesn't help the New York Times that Bill O'Reilly is ripping into their war coverage, too. Especially since O'Reilly is getting as influential as Rush Limbaugh in shaping public opinion.

[Roscoe]

Let's hope that the LAT is down too.

[I still care]

It couldn't be because people are starting to understand the depth of the bias of the NY Times, oh no.

[martin_fierro]

Not to worry: The Old Gray Whore has commandeered what used to be the Discovery Civilization Channel.

[Coop]

Traditionally war increases newspaper circulation.

Ain't dat da truth?! I usually pick up a paper from a nearby drug store in the afternoon. The last few weeks if I don't get there by lunch, I don't get a paper.

[Freedom of Speech Wins]

Someone was on the Fox News or CNBC weekend financial shows a few weeks ago saying that NY Times stock was a good buy.

Said that the focus on national distribution would be the key.

They have begun putting the sports section on the back of the metro section rather than have it be a separate section. To try to save money here, I believe they are being cheap. Or maybe they are displaying a proconservation stance.

[CyberAnt]

Well ... if the NYT printed the truth, people would be paying PREMIUM DOLLARS to be a part of their paper.

[Cicero]

I subscribed to the Times for many years because, even though I disliked their bias, they did at least cover most of the news. If you went through the back pages you could find the stuff they buried, and with their main articles and editorials you could just allow for their bias and read between the lines.

No more. Now they simply don't print the news at all if they find it inconvenient. That's the worst offense of the liberal press; not news distortion but news suppression. I dropped my subscription about the time I found that I could get better in-depth news on the internet. For instance, you can find more news right here in FR than spending an hour combing through all that newsprint.