Comments on: Crunching the New York Times numbers

By: Ila

Ila — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 05:26:30 +0000

Rule #1 in the newspaper business: FIRST, have something to sell. Nobody wants to pay for advertising when there’s no circulation. Why do you think Rupert Murdoch is rich? Tear the thing apart, write some stories, and beef up circulation. You don’t have to BE Rupert Murdoch; just don’t be what everyone else is selling. Then go after someone other than Van Cleef and Arpels, Blue Cross, and car dealers as advertisers. There are lots of businesses out there. You’re WELCOME!

By: Steve

Steve — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 00:41:42 +0000

When saying the share price two years ago was $49, it would have been helpful to let us know the current share price for comparison purposes (if we didn’t know the cost of the Sunday or daily paper offhand). For what it’s worth (not very much), it closed on $5.34 on Friday.

By: Joseph

Joseph — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 22:33:56 +0000

Frankly, as the owner of a company who has advertised in the NYTs in the past, but choses to advertise elsewhere now, the death or bankrupcy of the Times causes me no pain. I never felt like I received the value I should have given the cost of the ad.

At one time, I suppose, it was hip to advertise in the Times, but most people who buy my products don’t read or subscribe to the Times, and frankly, don’t like it’s editorial policies.

By: Robert MacMillan

Robert MacMillan — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 20:05:35 +0000

Thanks Joshua, I’m painfully aware of the ad revenue situation being meaningful — and the debt and the circulation revenue that’s going up with price increases (not copies sold) and a host of other things.
Yes, I wrote it backward. I will fix it.

By: Joshua

Joshua — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 18:43:51 +0000

“# The ratio of the cover price of the Sunday edition of the Times to the share price is under 2:1.
# The ratio of the daily cover price to the share price is under 5:1.”

First of all, this is extremely sloppy — you’ve got your ratios backward.

Second, it’s meaningless – ad revenue is the big issue, not newsstand sales.

By: Robert

Robert — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 17:53:22 +0000

What conspiracy, Bill? It’s just thinking out loud. I’ll cop to dimwitted. I’m a reporter, not the guy who’s going to solve the NYT’s problems. If you have some thoughts, why not share them here? Or, if they’re realistic, just go tell the Times. I’m sure they pay consultants.

By: Newt

Newt — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 15:33:10 +0000

What?? You mean the NYT isn’t a candidate for bailout $? Maybe on 1/21/09 they will be.

By: Bill

Bill — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 05:38:46 +0000

I wouldnt call that “informed analysis”, just dimwitted conspiracy theories. NYT is barely cashflow profitable after interest. Over the past year they have increased borrowings to pay the dividend – no way at all they can keep doing that. $450m of the debt is current and if they are to roll any of that they have to cut the dividend – further measures will also be required.
Sulzberger might, just possibly, want to take it private, but to do so he would need to find at least $400m to pay debt down to a level compatible with curent cashflows

By: m goode

m goode — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 22:26:01 +0000

I think you guys should do a mobile reader application so people can get the newspaper straight to their mobile phone for the same price as an actual newspaper. It would be especially cool on a phone like the Motorola Krave, because it has a HUGE crystal clear touch screen display with T9 predictive text/digital qwerty keyboard. You can check out the full specs online at Motorola.com/krave. Ive been a huge fan of this phone ever since I started working with Motorola. It’s incredible.