Skip to comments.Profit Plunge at the New York Times (DOWN 82%!)
Posted on 07/23/2008 8:16:25 AM PDT by LdSentinal
The New York Times (NYT: 13.07, +0.21, +1.63%) fell as low as $12.38 this morning after its second quarter earnings missed estimates. Profits plunged 82% to $21 mn versus the $118 mn posted in the same period a year ago, a period that was helped along by the one-time sale of an asset.
The share plunge is the lowest since July 1995.
Print ads dollars at the Times continue to shrivel, sending operating income in a nosedive, as ad dollars continued their inexorable march toward the Internet. Hotels, automakers, airlines, all hurt by high energy prices, have pulled back sharply.
Meanwhile, in news on another front, New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg and Bill Gates, philanthropist and legendary co-founder of software giant Microsoft (MSFT: 26.53, +0.73, +2.82%) have announced they plan to hold a press conference at the TimesCenter, run by the New York Times, to make an announcement today. In the past, Gates through his foundation has given tens of millions of dollars to help fix New York City schools.
Now if only the Times was on the list of the philanthropists handouts, as ad dollars continue to plunge at the paper. The Times is hoping against hope that its mix of assets, including The Boston Globe, the International Herald Tribune, About.com, regional newspapers and a classical music radio station in New York can pull it out of its corkscrew dive south. Stay tuned.
Get a loan from our enemies you dirtbags..
buh-bye, Pinch Loafberger!
Couldn’t happen to a nicer fishwrap newspaper....! HA!~HA!
ROTFLMAO ... schadenfreude. And the best part is these people still don’t have a clue “why” this is happening.
My bet is they will eventually dry up since they cannot admit what is really going on. The Internet is drying up our business crap is not working. They are like an alcoholic in complete denial. How pathetic.
I had to laugh, the post below yours is the Rush Limbaugh Live thread....I could not help see who has the greater success
To quote Governor Richardson, “Stop whining!”
It’s time to Pinch this one off, and let it go.
Wow the "old gray whore" is hoping to be bailed out by a classical music station...I've heard those are real cash cows.
Here`s one major reason why:
” The last HonestReporting long-term analysis of the New York Times was released in November of 2007. At the time, we found that there were several disturbing patterns in how the Times reported events in the Middle East. Our conclusion was that the treatment of Israeli and Palestinian actions was so different, that there could be no question that the reporting was favoring the Palestinians rather than remaining impartial. We highlighted specific cases where headlines dealing with Israeli or Palestinian actions were written in different styles. We also noted that the vast majority of images used by the Times appears reflectively sympathetic to the Palestinians while virtually ignoring the greater context surrounding the conflict.
We have now concluded a broader survey of the Times. Specifically, we looked at 205 articles between July of 2007 and June of 2008. Using this much larger time frame, we found that our original thesis has only been strengthened. Specifically, when reviewing headlines and photographs, it is clear that there is an inherent bias in New York Times reporting about the conflict that favors the Palestinians.
THE NEW YORK TIMES: JULY 2007-JUNE 2008- SUMMARY OF FINDINGS:
82 percent of headlines that introduced articles describing Israeli military operations were written in a direct style in which the words “Israel” or “Israeli Forces” (or a similar phrase) were the subject. In the majority of these cases, no details were given as to whether the casualties were combatants or civilians. An example of this type of headline ran in the Times on January 4, 2008: “Israeli Forces Kill 9 in Gaza.”
Only 20 percent of headlines that introduced articles describing Palestinian attacks named the group responsible. Most of these headlines were written in a passive, less direct style that removes responsibility of the attack from those who caused it. An example of this type of headline ran on May 13, 2008: “Rocket Fired from Gaza Kills Woman in Southern Israel.”
75 percent of the photographs that could be objectively determined as drawing sympathy for one side or the other in the conflict favored the Palestinians. Palestinian casualties of Israeli military operations and pictures of civilians dealing with shortages in Gaza dominated Times coverage during the time period studied.
The New York Times Company Declares Regular Quarterly Dividend Thu Jun 19, 2008 5:47pm EDT
NEW YORK--(Business Wire)-- The New York Times Company's Board of Directors today declared a regular quarterly dividend of $.23 per share on the Company's Class A and Class B common stock. The dividend is payable on September 15, 2008, to shareholders of record on September 2, 2008.
There might be still time to save the paper, if only they can turn more left fast enough.
That this is happening in an election year, when they expect to make a lot of $$ from political ads, is devastating.
I’m sure they will get a donation from Al Qaeda since the Slimes is doing Al Qaeda’s bidding.
Why would The Anointed One's campaign buy any ad space in the NYT? It would be preaching to the choir. Why would any Dem do so? The only people who can stomach the NYT's contents are going to vote D anyway.
If the NY Times should ever close its doors, what will the networks do for news stories? Does ABC even have any actual reporters, or are they all news readers who simply reshuffle Times and AP articles? Oh wait...that’s right, the networks can just go to the DNC directly. NEver mind.
Looking for a govment bailout.
You got me all excited with the 82% drop alert. That is, unfortunately, not true.
Sorry, my mistake. I just kept reading from the 2nd paragraph down. Now, I am thrilled.
Forget McCain’s editorial. They ought to run another full-page Moveon.org Gen. Betray Us ad..
I posted an article from the NYT once. It featured pictures of young Afghan girls, some not even 12 yet, married to men in their 50s and 60s. Somebody went to the link and posted all the pictures, presumably so nobody would have to click on the NYT link. Somebody else chastised me for posting it at all. I responded that I never bought the paper. I can’t remember who it was, but I owe that person thanks for having explained to me that clicking on their link boosts their internet ad. revenues.
So about.com is a NYT company, huh?
Well, that’s the end of that. Goodbye bookmarks.
Maybe another Gen. Betray us ad. is coming down the pike. What do you think? Full page, again?
they said the profits were low as compared to last year for the same quarter. but last year’s quarter included the sale of an asset. apples and oranges, imho. not that i want them to succeed, but it’s a silly comparison.
NEW YORK (AP) — The New York Times Co. will increase the Monday-Saturday newsstand cost of its flagship paper by 25 cents to $1.50, the publisher said Wednesday.
Times Chief Executive Janet Robinson said the price increase for the New York Times will take effect Aug. 18. The company has already raised home delivery prices for the paper 4.5 percent in two separate hikes since last July. That helped overall circulation revenue rise 2.5 percent in the latest quarter.
Who would pay a $1.50 for a paper copy if you can read it for free on the Internet?
My guess is most paid subscribers who pay the monthly rate of $55 a month, are billing it to their company or the taxpayers.
The move comes a week after The Wall Street Journal said it would boost its newsstand price by 50 cents to $2 starting July 28 to reflect both new content and higher costs.
I'm sure the camel jockeys will step up with a bail out at any moment.
I couldn’t be happier.
It could not have happened to a nicer laydy.
While newspapers see a little increase in ad revenue in election years, it is mostly from local candidates and not National candidates.
The reason being, is twofold. One, they know that readership is down in a huge way, but more importantly, it has to do with top-of-mind awareness. TV and Radio can create much more repetition and name recall is extremely important to candidates when it comes time for voting by the hoi polloi.
For a while, they were requiring a fee from those who had an interest in their editorial pages. I used to read Tom Freidman and David Brooks. When they did that, I stopped. Then the buld went off about their ad revenues.
Every now and again, someone will post an excerpt that piques my curiosity. Now that MoDo has started to savage Obama, I am curious. I have (confession is good for the soul) read a couple of her columns about him. It’s a guilty pleasure. I won’t anymore once the election is over.
“buh-bye, Pinch Loafberger”
I am rooting for the NYT to go fully out of business before old Yankee Stadium is knocked down.
NY TIMES - all the Obama news fit to print, hell, we will even let him write op-eds for us!!
best thing about the NY Times? Maybe the sports section.
“I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse” -God
Their classical music station is kind of snarky, but very much appreciated since NPR dropped the classics and a third classical station suddenly went over to rock some years ago.
Anyway, I’m glad I don’t make that commute any more.
What wonderful news! :-D
Maybe George Soros will bail them out!
Oooh, that's gonna leave a mark....
They’ve driven a great asset into the ground.
The major source of revenue for newspapers is still advertising but, I guess when that source is drying up......well there you have it.
The interesting thing is that newspapers have been padding their circ numbers for YEARS and gouging advertisers. It is egregious.
Simply google “newspaper circulation scandal” and you will have plenty of information on all that has come down about this. Not only are they disgusting from a bias standpoint but more disgusting as unethical businesses.
A Democratic bailout.
They could just open up the Washington ComPost and read it on the air.
You know, someone should tell Rush this is a great business opportunity here.
He would love this kind of stick it in your face publicity.
He could become a mega media mogul... Could you imagine the headlines? The libs would have a heart attack on camera.
A surefire way for the NYTimes to get some of their readers back is to shun an opinion piece by McCain after running Obama’s opinion piece. They need to think about doing that. I think it will really help boost their circulation.
Is Soros going to buy the NYT just to make it an even worse propaganda machine?
I’m sure the camel jockeys will step up with a bail out at any moment....
They can rename it the “Camel Dung Daily”....
Can someone in the newspaper business help me out? I thought the number of pages which a newspaper printed was based on the number of ads in that issue. When the ad revenue was down, the newspaper compensated by printing fewer pages.