Posted on 07/23/2008 6:55:52 PM PDT by Daffynition
Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. and Janet Robinson reported grim second-quarter results today—ad revenue down another 10 percent versus the second quarter last year, net income down to $21 million versus the $118 million they made this quarter last year—and just dropped a small bombshell:
"We plan to increase the daily newsstand price of the Times from $1.25 to $1.50," said Ms. Robinson on a conference call with investors this morning. It goes into effect on August 18.
The paper last raised newsstand prices last July.
is this news? Does anyone actually read the NYT?
Unbelievable.
That’s one expensive piece of toilet paper!
Naked shorts are rarely a good thing, unless the equity being shorted is NYT, GCI, WPO, TRB, CBS, etc.
LOL,they just dont get it.
my bird cage objects!
Dat Beez a-lot-o-money to line the bird cage. Sure the birds will improve the content. Still $1.50 and you can’t really wipe with it?
Typical Libs. Your product sucks, you are laying off staff so raise the price. How about getting more ads? No sales no ads.
:-)
That’s liberal economics for you.
Lack of demand causing a decline in profits? Just raise prices, that’ll solve the problem. Yes sir.
My butt objects!
Here’s another great cartoon for ya!!!
No wonder the circulation is down. Perhaps they should cut the price to 25 or 50 cents and see if that helps. Ads should be the profit center, sales price just offsets distribution costs.
Obviously, they ought to raise it more, just in case ad revenue drops again. ..Five bucks is a nice round number. Whats a five spot when youre getting all that useful information ?
Newspapers are so 18th Century.
Why don’t they just charge Soros 10 million for his daily copy?
Then they wouldn’t have to worry about that pedestrian nuisance know as the marketplace.
It’s a steal at any price.
NYT tests price elasticity in attempt to disprove laws of supply and demand.
Raising prices into dwindling demand, in business that would be called suicide, slow, painful and fitting for any liberal entity.
But NYT is the starbucks of newspapers. Most people who buy it now will buy it at higher prices; a handful would pay substantially more for it.
Further, this type of action is no-lose, because it will force existing readers to the site more, or to subscibe more.
It's just a hunch but newstand sales are loss leaders anyway -- it's like a billboard the recovers some of its costs on a good day. The idea is to keep the name out there, make it too convenient to avoid.
Die Times, Die!
Why not just buy the Daily Worker? It’s probably cheaper and you get the same information, posing as news.
This is pure stupidity. Smart marketers lower their price when their product isn’t moving at its current price. Last year’s raise in price to $1.25 accelerated their decline in readership causing the drop in their income and profit. So their answer is to raise the price yet again?
These people have to be the products of government schools.
As a kid in 1969-70 I remember delivering NewsDay papers on my bike in the afternoons. Cost 5 cents each and there was no sunday edition back then either. Plenty of people read them too.
The New York Times - the Robert Mugabe of the newspaper world.
Boy these people are smart. Nobody buys their rag so they raise the price. That’s kinda like the economy is bad so lets raise taxes. I love it.
That's an amazing sign of imminent failure. The paper has been around for 112 years, and quarterly income declined 82 percent in just one year.
That’s $1.50 more than it’s worth. : )
Only 21 million a quarter. Why we need a windfall profit tax of 90%. Who are the rich investors taking advantage of the middle class raising their prices to feed their greed. LOL!!!
Great business sense the NYT has. Your product is going down the tubes, people will not buy it, what to do? Raise the price of your product. That’ll force people to buy it now!
Just think..you could spend $1.50 for tomorrow’s paper and you would know less about the world than if you read FR on your hand held on the train to work.
You could look over the shoulder of the guy reading National Enquire and learn something for free!
Should have a “Dinosaur Media Death Watch” (TM) notation?
Wow, 83% nosedive in revenues.
Kinda like Ford saying they're gonna raise the price of their F-Series pickup's by about $8000 per truck.
Yeah...that the ticket!!!!! NOW IT'LL SELL!!!!!
I love RATonomics 101.
I might pay 25 cents for the New York Times . . . to line our guinea pig’s cage.
LOL....funny good one!
I wonder how many readers cancelled their subscriptions because of their refusal to print McCain’s Op-Ed. Even a few would hurt their bottom line.
20% Rate increase in One year...wow!
Great comments everyone! HAHAHA!
No need for the kleenex I brought along though ... no one seems to need it. ;)
They're hopeless! They're never gonna git it!! They've got the Terminal Stupids!!! (screamin laffin)
Hmmm - OK, we’re not making enough money on the print media so let’s raise the prices. Makes sense.
Next quarter- bankrupt. Liberals never learn that raising the taxes results in decreased revenues.
ROFLMAO
You got it. When your base is only 10,000 (and shrinking), you lose another 1000 over the McCain flap, 500 over outing the CIA guy, another 750 over the price increase, pretty soon yer hurtin' fer certain.
Liberalism is an advanced stage of syphilis.
No problem. They'll just get NPR to buy them so that they can be subsidized by the taxpayers.
Some of us sponsored a couple of anti-enviro billboards in AZ and WA a few years back and they supported themselves with donations solicited on the billboard for a few months or longer.
Shoot, what am I supposed to use for kindling now?
Your poor guinea pig. Aren't you afraid it might read what it is chewing on?
The sooner this bankrupt treason rag shuts down for good, the better the world will be.
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.