NYT revenue down 20% in November

[warpig]

Some how I can endure the suffering at the NYT with a smile on my face....................


Hot Air Blog Archive Heart-ache: NYT revenue down 20% in November

Ad revenue at the publisher’s New York Times Media Group, which includes the Times newspaper, fell 21.2 percent from a year earlier because of a drop in real estate and jobs classified advertising…
The Times is considering selling some of its properties, but has not yet said which ones.
Internet ad revenue, long a source of hope among newspaper publishers battered by falling print ad sales and circulation, dropped 4 percent in the news media group. That reflects a decline in online jobs and real estate ads.

The last paragraph may hold a clue as to why I’m greeting this news less with schadenfreude than anxiety. I linked Riehl’s post the other day about the Times possibly going bust this year if property values sink far enough that they can’t leverage their holdings sufficiently to cover their current debt, but it’s worth a re-link under the circumstances. As is this New Yorker piece on the demise of newspapers, also via Riehl:

The peculiar fact about the current crisis is that even as big papers have become less profitable they’ve arguably become more popular. The blogosphere, much of which piggybacks on traditional journalism’s content, has magnified the reach of newspapers, and although papers now face far more scrutiny, this is a kind of backhanded compliment to their continued relevance. Usually, when an industry runs into the kind of trouble that Levitt was talking about, it’s because people are abandoning its products. But people don’t use the Times less than they did a decade ago. They use it more. The difference is that today they don’t have to pay for it. The real problem for newspapers, in other words, isn’t the Internet; it’s us. We want access to everything, we want it now, and we want it for free. That’s a consumer’s dream, but eventually it’s going to collide with reality: if newspapers’ profits vanish, so will their product.
Does that mean newspapers are doomed? Not necessarily. There are many possible futures one can imagine for them, from becoming foundation-run nonprofits to relying on reader donations to that old standby the deep-pocketed patron.

More people now get their news from the ‘Net than from print, but the galaxy of competitors online means ad revenue’s necessarily going to be thinner, especially in a recession. Gulp.
Current share price of the Times: $5.99. We should start a pool to pick the date when their stock will cost less than a copy of the paper. Exit question: Deep pockets, influence with nonprofits — did the New Yorker just come up with a fallback career for Princess if this whole Senate thing doesn’t work out?

[Maylar]

Newspapers are a dying form of news sadly. Soon you'll have less choices. Just big media and the Net.

[Fantasy Chaser]

Originally Posted by Maylar

Newspapers are a dying form of news sadly. Soon you'll have less choices. Just big media and the Net.

Big-city newspapers like the NYT are kind of big media. And I imagine they'll die sooner than the small-town papers.

[Psyclist]

RIP, NY Times.

From: Ghost of Christmas Future.

[samspade]

Originally Posted by warpig

Some how I can endure the suffering at the NYT with a smile on my face....................


Hot Air Blog Archive Heart-ache: NYT revenue down 20% in November

Ad revenue at the publisher’s New York Times Media Group, which includes the Times newspaper, fell 21.2 percent from a year earlier because of a drop in real estate and jobs classified advertising…

The Times is considering selling some of its properties, but has not yet said which ones.

Internet ad revenue, long a source of hope among newspaper publishers battered by falling print ad sales and circulation, dropped 4 percent in the news media group. That reflects a decline in online jobs and real estate ads.

The last paragraph may hold a clue as to why I’m greeting this news less with schadenfreude than anxiety. I linked Riehl’s post the other day about the Times possibly going bust this year if property values sink far enough that they can’t leverage their holdings sufficiently to cover their current debt, but it’s worth a re-link under the circumstances. As is this New Yorker piece on the demise of newspapers, also via Riehl:

The peculiar fact about the current crisis is that even as big papers have become less profitable they’ve arguably become more popular. The blogosphere, much of which piggybacks on traditional journalism’s content, has magnified the reach of newspapers, and although papers now face far more scrutiny, this is a kind of backhanded compliment to their continued relevance. Usually, when an industry runs into the kind of trouble that Levitt was talking about, it’s because people are abandoning its products. But people don’t use the Times less than they did a decade ago. They use it more. The difference is that today they don’t have to pay for it. The real problem for newspapers, in other words, isn’t the Internet; it’s us. We want access to everything, we want it now, and we want it for free. That’s a consumer’s dream, but eventually it’s going to collide with reality: if newspapers’ profits vanish, so will their product.

Does that mean newspapers are doomed? Not necessarily. There are many possible futures one can imagine for them, from becoming foundation-run nonprofits to relying on reader donations to that old standby the deep-pocketed patron.

More people now get their news from the ‘Net than from print, but the galaxy of competitors online means ad revenue’s necessarily going to be thinner, especially in a recession. Gulp.
Current share price of the Times: $5.99. We should start a pool to pick the date when their stock will cost less than a copy of the paper. Exit question: Deep pockets, influence with nonprofits — did the New Yorker just come up with a fallback career for Princess if this whole Senate thing doesn’t work out?

When will the liberal media finally find out that they are in the minority and that no one wants to read their skewing of the news? I was listening to Washington Journal this morning and a caller lamented about this fact then he proceeded to talk about the Huffington Post as being a good outlet. Well if he is that far left he probably thinks that the New York times is a conservative news outlet.

The Times has been outed many times about false or misleading stories and still they insist that their view is right. Sounds a lot like Dan Rather who is still insisting that the phony memos on Bush were real in spite of all the proof against them.

Why would any one destroy the original memos if they wanted to make a case out of them?

[mtemptyspace2008]

Originally Posted by Psyclist

RIP, NY Times.

From: Ghost of Christmas Future.

See ya NY Times.

[swirling_vortex]

I was listening to Washington Journal this morning and a caller lamented about this fact then he proceeded to talk about the Huffington Post as being a good outlet.

Are you serious? That piece of garbage as a news source needs to die. They label Fox as being a bunch of morons without looking at themselves first.

Newspapers are a dying form of news sadly. Soon you'll have less choices. Just big media and the Net.

Google News ftw!

That is true, but the NYT isn't some dinky little paper, it's a publication known nationally. If anything, they should be about one of the last sources to go bankrupt and yet they're one of the first.

[Sunsettommy]

Good riddance to a loony leftist rag.

[markstob]

bah, it will probably get a bailout.