Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

TIMES' 4Q PROFIT OFF (attributes costs of 500 job cuts)
NY POST ^ | December 22, 2005 | Bloomberg

Posted on 12/22/2005 4:43:56 AM PST by Liz

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-53 next last
Because it can't predict next year's ad market, the company won't provide financial forecasts.

The question is why advertisers don't want their ads in the NYT. Does Jayson Blair ring a bell?

1 posted on 12/22/2005 4:43:58 AM PST by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Liz

Lets give them a pity party.

Couldnt happen to a nicer bunch of commies.


2 posted on 12/22/2005 4:47:47 AM PST by sgtbono2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz

The NY Slimes is a front organization of DNC, ANSWER, and other subversive groups. Okay.....I am exagerrating slightly here but you get the general idea.


3 posted on 12/22/2005 4:48:00 AM PST by indcons (FRepmail indcons to join the MilHist ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: indcons
...fourth-quarter profit will fall to around 45 cents a share because of costs to cut jobs.

We can assume that the cost of cutting jobs is generous severance packages. Something the media decries when corporate America offers these.

4 posted on 12/22/2005 4:52:25 AM PST by Erik Latranyi (9-11 is your Peace Dividend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Because it can't predict next year's ad market, the company won't provide financial forecasts.

And these folks publish a business section?!

5 posted on 12/22/2005 4:53:44 AM PST by mewzilla (Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Because it can't predict next year's ad market, the company won't provide financial forecasts.

Because management doesn't have a good grasp on reality, the company can't provide financial, or any other, forecasts much less recognize truth.

There, that's better.

6 posted on 12/22/2005 5:02:53 AM PST by CPOSharky (Taxation WITH representation kinda sucks too.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz

Where is the NYT's plan to regain market share? They need to withdraw from the war on Bush and redeploy their assets in more profitable endeavors. The length of this financial slide puts them in a quagmire. Where's their intelligence on future ad revenue? Have they been lying about their future prospects? We all know their credibility is in the tank - how will they turn their poll numbers around? Inquiring people want to know.


7 posted on 12/22/2005 5:16:26 AM PST by Paladin2 (If the political indictment's from Fitz, the jury always acquits.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002

"They need a better advertising environment," said Edward Atorino, managing director at New York-based research company Benchmark Co.

Yeah, that's it, better ads. That'll fix everything. What a maroon.

The NYT is going the way of Hollywood, down the slow flush. It's gratifying to know that there are far more intelligent folks out there than the Left would have us believe.


8 posted on 12/22/2005 5:17:17 AM PST by SueRae
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
And these folks publish a business section?!

They also publish a science and technology section, but clearly don't have a clue what they're writing about. Knowledge of the subject at hand is not a prerequisite for "journalism."

9 posted on 12/22/2005 5:24:38 AM PST by The_Victor (If all I want is a warm feeling, I should just wet my pants.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SueRae
Hit the RATs where they hurt--in the wallet! Keep boycotting the Slimes and tell you relatives and contats to do the same. Boycott advertisers in the Slimes. The Slimes engages in seditious, anti-American acts.

The five year graph of the Slimes below shows the stock price was flat from 2001 to 2004, then started tanking in 2004. Since mid-2002, the Slimes has lost nearly half its value.


10 posted on 12/22/2005 5:25:57 AM PST by Dont_Tread_On_Me_888 (Bush's #1 priority Africa. #2 priority appease Fox and Mexico . . . USA priority #64.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dont_Tread_On_Me_888

11 posted on 12/22/2005 5:47:00 AM PST by oxcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Liz
The declining profit outlook underscores the difficulty The Times is having as advertisers shift to the Internet.

Which is due to readership dropping like a rock everywhere outside of the DNC/MSM.

12 posted on 12/22/2005 5:48:50 AM PST by EricT. (My pastor mentioned Samuel Taylor Coleridge and I thought of Iron Maiden.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dont_Tread_On_Me_888

Man! They started sinking like a lead balloon around June, 2004.

Their opinion of themselves is so high that they can't even consider that they may be doing something wrong.


13 posted on 12/22/2005 5:54:21 AM PST by Preachin' (Enoch's testimony was that he pleased God: Why are we still here?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Liz; All
Liz, I saw you were pinged to this yesterday, but for other FReepers, here is the thread from yesterday.

The New York Times Co. Provides Fourth-Quarter Earnings Guidance (EARLY CHRISTMAS PRESENT!!)

Check the hilarious chart posted by Grampa Dave #15 here

14 posted on 12/22/2005 5:58:55 AM PST by Arrowhead1952 (I never got a job from a person on a government program.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Because it can't predict next year's ad market, the company won't provide financial forecasts.

So the NYT can predict with smug confidence the outcome of the war in Iraq, with its myriad of variables, but it can't predict its own ad revenue for the coming year?

15 posted on 12/22/2005 5:58:56 AM PST by randog (What the....?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz

500 down, 12000 to go...


16 posted on 12/22/2005 6:03:24 AM PST by rock_lobsta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz

If you cannot believe their front page stories, any question the books might be cooked too?


17 posted on 12/22/2005 6:37:46 AM PST by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
We can assume that the cost of cutting jobs is generous severance packages. Something the media decries when corporate America offers these.

I didn't start out intending to write for them, but the NYT bought about.com while I was a guide for one of their sites. Not only did I not get any type of severance package when -- the day before my birthday! -- they advised me that (despite more than doubling traffic over the previous year's/guide's page views, adding more content than was required by my contract, etc. etc. etc.) they were "ending our relationship" because I hadn't sufficiently converted my site to comply with their "writing for the Web" philosophy. They now only pay me about a fifth of what that same content was earning me while I was guide for the site. (The content stays there until they hire a new guide, who will then work for free during the time it takes to "build" the site, and who will then only earn what I was earning if he or she increases the page view traffic over what mine had been. Of course, that's assuming their contract remains as "generous" as it was while I worked there.)

FYI: I moved MY copyrighted content from that NYT-owned pop-up ads site to my own (no pop-up ads) domain at Chronic-Illness.org.
18 posted on 12/22/2005 7:36:34 AM PST by Fawnn (Canteen wOOhOO Consultant and CookingWithPam.com person - Faith makes things possible, not easy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Preachin'
Their opinion of themselves is so high that they can't even consider that they may be doing something wrong.

Exactly, and it is that way with all RATs. Take Hollyweird, for example. They are moaning and groaning about the decline in box office sales, yet Disney has anti-American scum like Alec Baldwin play an American hero Jimmy Doolittle, and a current film ( "Ride Him Bearback" Mountain) is about two gay guys that Hollyweird calls a "heartwarming tearjerker".

And they are "bewildered" why a large segment of America is boycotting them and ignoring them. They are so self-centered and ignorant it is quite funny when you think about it.

19 posted on 12/22/2005 7:38:59 AM PST by Dont_Tread_On_Me_888 (Bush's #1 priority Africa. #2 priority appease Fox and Mexico . . . USA priority #64.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Fawnn

I salute you for doing that on your own. We need to support people like you and ignore/boycott scum like the Slimes.


20 posted on 12/22/2005 7:41:03 AM PST by Dont_Tread_On_Me_888 (Bush's #1 priority Africa. #2 priority appease Fox and Mexico . . . USA priority #64.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-53 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson