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

Skip to comments.

NY Times Co. Explains Its 'Shockingly Weak' Ad Results
Fortune ^ | October 25, 2012 | Jeff Bercovici

Posted on 10/25/2012 11:46:50 AM PDT by lbryce

For years, The New York Times Co. has been fighting a losing battle to replace its dwindling print advertising revenues with digital ones. So when an analyst singles out the results from a quarter as “shockingly weak,” you know that’s pretty bad.

That’s what happened Thursday morning on a conference call to discuss the publisher’s third-quarter earnings. The numbers were indeed somewhat grim: Total ad revenues for the company were down 8.9% from the same period in 2011, with both print and digital advertising falling.

Although circulation revenues rose 9.3%, largely on the strength of a successful program to charge for digital access to the Times, it wasn’t enough to offset the dismal ad-side performance. The result was a 60% drop in operating profit, to $8.5 million, and a loss from continuing operations of 2 cents per share.

Denise Warren, the company’s chief advertising officer, said the advertising struggles reflected a mix of cyclical issues and secular changes in the market.

On the cyclical front, she said, “You can write off the economy but we are hearing from business leaders that they are extremely concerned and the lack of business confidence is growing.”

But while that’s having a temporary effect on spending, the more serious problem may be the fact that the Times Co. just can’t compete effectively in the game of selling mass audiences to advertisers. Warren cited “an abundance of inventory” and “efficient buying methods such as programmatic buying” offered by Google and Yahoo as forces driving down ad rates.

(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: newyorktimes
Pravda in a celebratory mood that its sister publication will soon be joining them in the dustbin of history.
Hey, Comrade, what took you so long?

“You really have to peel back the onion in terms of what you’re offering,” she said.

Peel back the onion? Not nearly the eloquence you might expect from the Times.

In trying to explain the shockingly weak ad results, Denise Warren, the Times Chief Advertising Officer describes the Times situation in terms of an onion, which is much more revealing than you might think, the Times' perspective on the world more like "the Onion" than what is really going on.

Warren:Uh, uh,.... oh, uh...oh, uh....ahem...uhhh. Okay. Okay. Let me say it the way it is. Frankly, we're just slime, a situation that predates the internet and the people know it.

1 posted on 10/25/2012 11:46:51 AM PDT by lbryce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: lbryce

Bush’s fault...........


2 posted on 10/25/2012 11:49:00 AM PDT by Red Badger (Why yes, that was crude and uncalled for......That's why I said it..............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

BUSH’S FAULT!


3 posted on 10/25/2012 11:54:22 AM PDT by Panzerlied ("We shall never surrender!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce
When you're in the news business, what you're ultimately selling is a trustworthy delivery of what's happening now. The NYT and other liberals lost sight of that fact, and once you lose trust, you never get it back.

The Times isn't an old grey lady anymore. She's just a dead gal walking.

4 posted on 10/25/2012 11:54:56 AM PDT by FredZarguna ("The future does not belong to those who do not eat bacon.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce
I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

Ad-Less Shrugged. (tm)

5 posted on 10/25/2012 12:01:01 PM PDT by Defiant (If there are infinite parallel universes, why Lord, am I living in the one with Obama as President?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce
I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

Ad-Less Shrugged. (tm)

6 posted on 10/25/2012 12:01:27 PM PDT by Defiant (If there are infinite parallel universes, why Lord, am I living in the one with Obama as President?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

What are the demographics of the average NYT reader:

1. 30 and up
2. In education or media industries
3. In arts production or finance
4. Financially well off, trust babies
5. Very DNC connected

Not that many people. Why they should be so relevant is beyond me. They are the liberal mafia.


7 posted on 10/25/2012 12:07:00 PM PDT by cicero2k
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2950142/posts


8 posted on 10/25/2012 12:12:08 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

NY TIMES Stock down 20%


9 posted on 10/25/2012 12:19:26 PM PDT by PMAS (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist

When Newspapers fail to report the news, and shape it with their individual bias’s to fit their agendas, they loose a large share of their audience. If they would like to be financially more stable....report the news and don’t choose a side.


10 posted on 10/25/2012 12:19:40 PM PDT by Swingj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

Newspapers forgot what business they were in. If asked, most today would say they were in the information business, that is wrong.

Newspapers are in the eyeball business. Simply put, they do not make money on subscription, they make money on advertisement. The more eyes that see the ad the more they can charge.

Now newspapers have never been unbias. Yellow journalism was the norm, so what makes a difference today as opposed to a hundred years ago?

This is also simple. Up until the 1950s every major city and many smaller cities had two or more newspapers. Each with their own point of view. This was so common that many newspaper included their bias in their name, either Republican or Democrat. Even if they did not, the readers knew their bias.

People subscribed to the newspaper that match their point of view.

In the 1950s many things began to change and reading newspapers stop being the habit it once was. As readership declined and newspapers began to go out of business the industry made their fatal mistake. They kept their bias which automatically turned off many of their readers.

Today there are many sources of information. If you are politically on the far left, you read the New York Times or the LA Times if not, why bother.

To be honest I do not want a news source that just re-enforces my beliefs. I want a simple un-bias presentation of the facts; who, what, when, where and why.

No one killed killed newspapers, they committed suicide.


11 posted on 10/25/2012 12:20:20 PM PDT by CIB-173RDABN (California does not have a money problem, it has a spending problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

Hey Carlos, it may be getting time to sell off the assets and cut your losses.


12 posted on 10/25/2012 12:20:50 PM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce
Many consumers purchase a newspaper specifically for its advertising. That doesn't carry over to a digital format. People who want to buy something via internet go to Craigslist, eBay, Amazon, etc. The Times Co. has spent a couple of billion looking for ways to transfer its retail display and classified ads—and the huge revenue they produce—onto its on-line news product. Eventually somebody might figure it out but it will probably be some 20-year-old kid doing graphics at an ad agency.
13 posted on 10/25/2012 12:30:06 PM PDT by Brad from Tennessee (A politician can't give you anything he hasn't first stolen from you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

The New York Times is a Communist Kamikaze. They have purposely crashed their craft into the superstructure of good old fashioned American ideals and Judeo-Christian values. What’s left of them belongs at the bottom of the ocean.


14 posted on 10/25/2012 12:34:04 PM PDT by MarineBrat (Better dead than red!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

The SLIMES is unreadable: written by Ivy Leaguers who read the Cliff Notes version of the Communist Manifesto.


15 posted on 10/25/2012 12:39:55 PM PDT by SC_Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
Bush’s fault...........

AlGore's fault....he invented the internet.

16 posted on 10/25/2012 1:35:14 PM PDT by 5thGenTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

“an abundance of inventory”

Is that the ads remaining unsold or the mounds of liberal tripe still lying around the offices?


17 posted on 10/25/2012 2:20:18 PM PDT by relictele
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce
Warren cited “an abundance of inventory”

LOL! It's call competition, idiot.

5.56mm

18 posted on 10/25/2012 2:23:59 PM PDT by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce
If this doesn't cheer you up...


19 posted on 10/25/2012 2:26:26 PM PDT by Straight Vermonter (Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce
On the cyclical front, she said, “You can write off the economy but we are hearing from business leaders that they are extremely concerned and the lack of business confidence is growing.”

That's not what Obama says, yet they'll still endorse him.

20 posted on 10/25/2012 2:39:59 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce
Hurry up and die already. Nobody reads it, so no advertisers go near it.

When USA Today has double your circulation (1,900,000 v 900,000), you should get the message.

The Kenyan must go.

21 posted on 10/25/2012 5:57:40 PM PDT by ex91B10 (We've tried the Soap Box,the Ballot Box and the Jury Box; ONE BOX LEFT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist

Thanks. I needed a good laugh.


22 posted on 10/25/2012 6:11:14 PM PDT by lbryce (BHO-"Now, I am become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds" by way of Oppenheimer at Trinity, NM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: lbryce
At least it gives a accurate description why their readership is down and their stocks are down.


23 posted on 10/25/2012 6:53:45 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: lbryce
largely on the strength of a successful program to charge for digital access to the Times

Someone is not paying their fair share of taxes!
24 posted on 10/25/2012 7:41:58 PM PDT by PA Engineer (Liberate America from the Occupation Media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

25 posted on 10/25/2012 7:51:23 PM PDT by dead (It ain't over until the phone lady sings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

“...mix of cyclical issues and secular changes in the market.”

If you haven’t anything intelligent to say just babble something meaningless.


26 posted on 10/26/2012 9:11:30 AM PDT by ops33 (Senior Master Sergeant, USAF (Retired))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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