Newspapers are in the business of making information public so readers can benefit. Newspaper publishers are in the business of revealing as little as possible unless someone springs a leak.

In the case of the two-dozen newspaper publishers who met in the Chicago area to discuss ways to get people to pay for the news they read online, the leak landed in the hands of The Atlantic. Here is an excerpt:

There’s no mention on its website but the Newspaper Association of America, the industry trade group, has assembled top executives of the New York Times, Gannett, E. W. Scripps, Advance Publications, McClatchy, Hearst Newspapers, MediaNews Group, the Associated Press, Philadelphia Media Holdings, Lee Enterprises and Freedom Communication Inc., among more than two dozen in all. A longtime industry chum, consultant Barbara Cohen, “will facilitate the meeting.” …

There was a dinner Wednesday and, according to the agenda, Thursday begins with a quick declaration of goals at 8 a.m., then an 8:10 a.m. session labeled, “Fair Syndication Consortium/Attributor.” …

That first session is followed by “Journalism Online: Presentation on proposed service to charge for access to newspaper content and to license that content that (sic) online aggregators” (the assistance of at least one of the many copy editors sent packing by the attendees might have been sought).

It’s now safe to wager that most attendees, who were scheduled to include Michael Golden of the New York Times, Gary Pruitt of McClatchy and Tom Curley of the Associated Press, will be dragged into charging for at least some online content.

In other words, the papers are trying to figure out how they can charge people for news on the Internet after largely giving it to them for the past 10-15 years. They have to do this so they don’t have to shut down when print advertising revenue gets so low that they can’t afford to stay in business anymore.

Many people say that newspapers have to come up with industry-wide ways to charge and to do a bunch of other things. The only problem with that is antitrust law. No one wants to be caught colluding — it breaks the law, after all. Not to worry: according to the Newspaper Association of America’s statement, antitrust lawyers were there.

From John F. Sturm, president and CEO, Newspaper Association of America:

Newspaper industry executives met in Chicago today under the auspices of the Newspaper Association of America to discuss how best to support and preserve the traditions of newsgathering that will serve the American public.

Following hearings in committees of both the House and Senate, the group discussed business topics such as protection of intellectual property rights and approaches to the Congress and Administration to address these and other issues.

With antitrust counsel present, the group listened to executives from companies representing various new models for obtaining value from newspaper content online. The participants also shared success stories in driving new revenue to their newspapers products.

Some publishers are arguing for Congress to approve an antitrust rule change that would let them get together to solve the problems that thwart them from delivering journalism these days. Whether such a change could ever happen is up in the air. Either way, it apparently never hurts to start talks on the early side.

(Photo: Reuters)

How big is “Star Trek” for Viacom?

The movie dominated the box office this weekend, taking in an estimated $72.5 million in North American ticket sales. Combined with $4 million grossed from Thursday evening’s preview screenings, “Star Trek” tallied $76.5 million in U.S. and Canadian receipts through Sunday.

Paramount could use a big hit. Last year, as the economy worsened, Paramount scaled by its film releases and cut costs by about $50 million. And this year’s first quarter didn’t offer a lot of cheer: Viacom’s entire filmed entertainment division posted an operating loss of $123 million.

“The weak economy continued to dampen the home entertainment market and Paramount was not immune to the impact,” Chief Executive Philippe Dauman said on the quarterly conference call. That put it mildly.

“Star Trek” will help the bottom line, if last weekend is any indication. But more is at stake than one quarter’s results. It’s about momentum at Paramount. The movie studio is hoping the big weekend sets up the rest of the year, with the “Transformers” sequel and a film based on “G.I. Joe” heading to the theater.

Or as The Wall Street Journal points out…

The debut of “Trek” may also mark the beginning of a new era for Paramount, which both produced and distributed the picture, which cost between $130 million and $150 million to make. In recent years, Paramount has been in reboot mode itself. In 2005, (Paramount Chief Brad Grey) was brought on board to revamp the studio after a long lackluster period, in which it experienced disappointments like “The Stepford Wives” and “Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.”

Keep an eye on:

• The family that controls The New York Times empire has lost more than 86 percent of its fortune and may have sell their controlling stake to get out of debt (NY Post)

• Analysts are predicting that broadcast networks will see a 10 percent to 20 percent decline in this year’s broadcast TV upfront (AdAge.com)

• Satellite TV provider Dish Network Corp posted a better-than-expected profit on Monday as it lost fewer subscribers than most Wall Street analysts had forecast (Reuters)

(Photo: Reuters)

News broke this week that Anheuser-Busch has told NBC that the brewer will spend only about half as much on advertising packages during the upcoming 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympic Games and 2012 Summer Games in London, compared to previous years.

Over at 30 Rock, they aren’t too worried about it. NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker, who won wide praise for the company’s coverage of the Beijing Olympics, feels that there are plenty of advertisers ready to step in and replace any company that wants or needs to cut their spending on the sporting event.

When we asked Zucker about the Anheuser-Busch situation, he said, “The interest in the Olympics — because it’s such a unique event — has been extraordinary. Where certain companies decide it doesn’t work for them anymore, it provides an opportunity for their competitors to come in. That works out just fine for us.”

As for Hulu, which Disney joined yesterday, Zucker said he’s very happy with its progress, calling it the “preeminent site” for online videos. Even so, he’s not about to cannibalize either NBC Universal’s own TV networks or its website by handing over content like the Olympics. “I think the Olympics is something that’s pretty proprietary and is unique to our owned properties.

Oh, and don’t expect NBC Universal to become a big buyer of media properties even as valuations for some web properties have sunk like a stone. “We’ve been very proud of what we’ve grown organically here. Between Hulu and NBC.com and CNBC.com and MSNBC.com. Our digital strategy now is to enhance what we’ve grown here in the last 18 months.” In other words, focus on organic growth rather than acquisitions.

Keep an eye on:

• Don’t sweat the recession and depressed DVD sales, because Hollywood might be headed for its best year ever at the box office (WSJ.com)

• Is the Boston Globe about to be closed? It’s deadline day for the New York Times Co. (Reuters)

• You could soon see prices dipping on some of the most popular Macs — a big change for Apple (AppleInsider)

(Photo: Reuters)

From the bearish forecast department: Screen Digest, a media research firm, issued an outlook today predicting a 5 percent decline in online advertising in 2009. Folks, we’re not talking about newspapers or network television or radio here. We’re talking about the Web.

Screen Digest put out the forecast in response to the IAB’s recent report on 2008, which showed Web advertising rose 10 percent. But the number that turned heads over at Screen Digest was IAB’s fourth quarter figure, which put online growth at a mere 2.6 percent.

Here’s what Screen Digest says:

Following the fourth quarter 2008 tipping-point, Screen Digest has revised its 2009-2010 forecasts for online advertising in the US. We now predict that all categories and subcategories except video will decline in 2009. Banner advertising (-8.8 per cent) will not be fully compensated by the double digit growth of online video, so that the Display category will be down 3.6 per cent. Search will shrink by two per cent and non-Display categories such as Classifieds will experience double digit falls. Overall, the total internet advertising market will shrink by five per cent (-4.8) in 2009 and only stabilize (+0.4 per cent) in 2010.

Still, some perspective… Screen Digest figures that even with a slump in Web advertising, it will still fare better than the broader market. It seen total US advertising spending down in double-digits this year, and some areas (like local TV) dropping by up to 20 percent.

Keep an eye on:

• Boston Globe employees reacted with a mix of resignation and anger on learning of the pay and benefit cuts and the lost job security that The New York Times Company wants them to accept as the price of keeping the money-losing Globe in business (NY Times)
• Nintendo Co Ltd said sales of its Wii game console have lost some steam in Japan, but it aims to boost demand again by launching a new version of its blockbuster “Wii Sports” software in June (Reuters)
• Three months after Democratic Presidential contender Barack Obama took the White House, Fox News is beating its rival cable news networks, General Electric Co’s MSNBC and Time Warner Inc’s CNN in the ratings game (Reuters)

(Photo: Reuters)

While we were at The Cable Show last week, Comcast filed a documents with securities regulators detailing its 2008 executive compensation. The filing showed that Chief Executive Brian Roberts received $23.7 million in 2008 up from $20.8 million in 2007 but below his 2006 payout of $26 million.

Roberts, as the AP points out, has long been criticized by shareholders for the size of his pay package. His increase comes after Comcast shares fell some 7.6 percent in the calendar year 2008, but this outperformed most of the major market indexes, which fell between 30 to 45 percent last year.

In February Roberts and other executives agreed to forgo a pay rise in 2009 and cut back on personal benefits, including a previous agreement which had guaranteed the payment of his base salary and cash bonus to his heirs for up to five years after his death — a so called ‘golden coffin’ package.

According to Comcast’s compensation committee, Roberts and other top executives are compensated in line with other executives in similar sized companies both in the entertainment/media sector and beyond.

As Comcast filed on April 3rd, it was not included in the New York Times/Equilar Special Report on executive pay which ran in Sunday’s paper. The Times report was based on data reflecting pay for 200 chief executives that had filed their annual proxies by March 27 and whose companies had revenue of at least $6.3 billion.

Based on the Times’ chart of top earners, Roberts would have come in as the 13th highest paid chief executive — just below the newly appointed Motorola co-CEO Greg Brown ($24.2 million) and above Lockheed Martin chief Robert Stevens ($22.9 million).

In the entertainment/media sector Roberts came in third behind Walt Disney’s Bob Iger ($51.1 million) and News Corp chief Rupert Murdoch ($30.1 million). Motorola’s other co-CEO Sanjay Jha was at the top of the overall list with $104.4, mainly made up of stock options used to lure him to join the company last year from Qualcomm.

(Photo of Roberts/Reuters)

A Facebook friend of mine chastised me on Thursday after reading my story about salary reductions at The New York Times and buyouts at The Washington Post. He wanted to know why I hadn’t found anything positive to write about newspapers in a while.

Watch me use the the Newspaper Associations’ fourth-quarter newspaper advertising numbers, released on Thursday, to dash my friend’s expectations.

Here’s the roundup:

• Print ad sales: Down 20.6 percent. That compares to down 11.6 percent in the fourth quarter a year ago. It also is a downhill slide from 19.3 percent in Q3 2008, 16.1 percent in Q2 and 14.4 in Q1.
• Online ad sales: Down 8.1 percent versus up 22.3 percent last year. It’s also worse than the previous three quarters of down 3 percent, down 2.4 percent and up 7.2 percent.
• Total print and online? Down 19.7 percent versus down 10.3 percent last year. Previous three quarters? Down 18.1 percent, 15.1 percent, 12.9 percent.

If there’s a positive story to write, it’s that the bleeding might slow once the economy recovers. But when will that be? I’m sorry,  but the beatings really will continue until morale improves.

(Photo: Reuters)

As we reported earlier on Thursday:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Two of the most respected U.S. newspaper publishers, The Washington Post Co and The New York Times Co, are embarking on new cost cuts in the face of dramatic declines in advertising revenue.

You can read most of The Washington Post memo on MediaFile, as well as the juicy parts of what Washington Post Chairman Don Graham wrote to shareholders on Wednesday about the state of the company. Here, meanwhile, are the edited memos sent by New York Times executives to employees:

From Times Publisher and Times Co Chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr, as well as Times Co Chief Executive Janet Robinson:

The salaries of all employees at The New York Times Media Group (with the exception of the IHT, which is working on other cost reduction measures), The Boston Globe, Boston.com and Corporate in New York will be rolled back by 5%, starting this April, and these employees will receive 10 additional days off to use before the end of the year.

At the About Group, Baseline, Globe Direct, International Media Concepts, Regional Media Group, Shared Services Center and Worcester Telegram & Gazette, the approach is similar, with salaries being rolled back by 2.5% with five additional days off. We made the distinction between the two groups by taking into account location and other factors. Next year, we plan to return salaries to their current levels. Of course, such a decision depends on the state of our business. …

This was a very difficult decision to make. The environment we are in is the toughest we have seen in our years in business. Across our Company, you and your colleagues have worked hard to introduce innovative products and services, reduce expenses and improve productivity. We are deeply grateful for your efforts and proud of your achievements. As we take these painful steps together, we remain confident that our great Company will keep moving forward to better times.

And from New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller and other top news executives:

Clearly, our course is not getting any easier. The recession, especially the deteriorating advertising climate, is exacting a bitter toll, despite all that we have already done to reduce spending.

This morning, we notified about 100 employees on the business side of The Times that their jobs were being eliminated. We thank these dedicated colleagues for all they have contributed to The Times over the years.

The broader announcement today outlines a temporary salary reduction for the remainder of the year for all non-union employees, including the top leadership of the company. It is our hope that these cost-cutting measures will allow us to avoid further layoffs.

The details of the salary reduction will be communicated to you shortly by your senior managers. Although employee pay will be cut by 5% for the remaining three-quarters of the year, you will be entitled to 10 additional personal days off over the nine months. Next year, we plan to return salaries to their current levels. Of course, such a decision depends on the state of our business.

In addition, we will be asking that our Guild-represented colleagues make a similar sacrifice. The Company plans to discuss this with the Guild leadership this afternoon, in a spirit of shared sacrifice and as a way to otherwise avoid layoffs in the newsroom.

Editors think it’s the kiss of death to include words like “still” in headlines and “continued” in first paragraphs. It’s like admitting to readers that you didn’t have anything new to report. So why do I say that The New York Times is still thinking about making people pay to get news on its website? Because Times Executive Editor Bill Keller told readers on Tuesday that the Times is still thinking about doing this — and that made for a lot of news.

Here are the headlines:

• Times executive editor hints at online access fees. (The Associated Press)
• New York Times Considers Charging for Its Web Site (Bloomberg)
• Bill Keller Examines the NYT Business Model (Portfolio.com)
• Should the New York Times Charge for its Website? (Gawker)

Of the four, I like Portfolio’s best. Felix Salmon hits on a key point, the very one that I was thinking after reading these headlines Tuesday night: This is not news. Salmon writes:

Bill Keller’s musings about online subscriptions are causing something of a storm in the blogosphere, and even making the MSM. But I’d highly recommend you read the long version of Keller’s comments, rather than the soundbite version. Keller spends 2,164 words on what he calls “navel-gazing”, and the overall impression is twofold. Firstly Keller does not think that he has any answers to the questions posed by falling circulations and ad revenue. [Emphasis ours -Ed.] He’s thinking about all the options, in quite a sophisticated way — as he should be.

Here’s the soundbite part of what Keller said:

As most of you know, a few years ago The Times introduced a subscription service called Times Select. We put our columnists and our archives behind a wall and charged admission to anyone who was not a print subscriber. Times Select generated something like $10 million a year, which was real money, but in the end the company calculated that we’d be better off taking down the wall and letting the flood of additional visitors to the Web site attract advertising dollars. The lesson of that experiment, however, was not that readers won’t pay for content. A lot of people in the news business, myself included, don’t buy as a matter of theology that information “wants to be free.” Really good information, often extracted from reluctant sources, truth-tested, organized and explained - that stuff wants to be paid for. So far, it gets paid for mainly by advertisers, but a lively, deadly serious discussion continues within The Times about ways to get consumers to pay for what we make. [Emphasis ours. - Ed.]

In other words, this is something that the Times crew talks about all the time. Just like every other news outlet that’s trying to figure out how to make money online as their print newspaper business decline

Or, as New York Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis said, in response to my question about whether the Times has changed its thinking about charging for access instead of offering it for free: “We’ve been having this discussion for years.”

The New York Times confirmed this morning that it’s looking to get rid of its stake in the Boston Red Sox baseball team, something previously reported by a number of news outlets.

The Times could raise at least $200 million selling its stake, analysts have said, though it should be noted that selling anything these days — even part of a first class baseball organization — is no easy task.

Check back to MediaFile for more on the sale shortly.

Meanwhile, here’s a recap of the New York Times decline in quarterly results:

The Times’ fourth-quarter net income fell 48 percent to $27.6 million, or 19 cents a share, compared with $53 million, or 37 cents a share, in the quarter a year earlier.

Excluding a writedown related to the International Herald Tribune, its European newspaper, the Times reported earnings of 26 cents a share. The average analyst estimate was 27 cents a share, according to Reuters Estimates.

Revenue fell 10.8 percent to $772.1 million, beating the average Wall Street forecast of $761.1 million.

In the fourth quarter, advertising revenue fell 17.6 percent. Ad revenue at the news media group — which includes its namesake newspaper, The Boston Globe and other local papers throughout the United States — fell 18.4 percent.

Online revenue, including About and its newspaper websites, fell 2.9 percent to $92.5 million.

Keep an eye on:

• Only days before the National Football League’s championship game, Pepsi executives are still debating which advertisements they will run during NBC’s broadcast of the Super Bowl on Sunday, which will likely be viewed by nearly 100 million Americans (Reuters) 
• Union moderates fighting for control of the deeply splintered Screen Actors Guild on Monday ousted the hard-line chief negotiator they blame for months of stalled contract talks with Hollywood studios (Reuters)
• A cable channel from Paramount Pictures, MGM, and Lionsgate that is intended as a competitor to HBO and Showtime will be name Epix and wil launch online in May (New York Times)

(Photo: Reuters)

Wall Street analysts pestered new Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz with all kinds of questions during her first quarterly earnings call, and she answered as candidly as she could, frequently pointing out the fact that she’s still learning the ropes and getting to know the business.

But Bartz couldn’t resist the chance to crack a joke when Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster asked her about Yahoo’s roadmap for 2009, and whether investors can expect any guidelines about when things might start rolling.

“Well, Gene, I thought I’d buy The New York Times tomorrow,” Bartz said.

Lest Munster think, even for a split second, that Bartz might be taking him up on his suggestion, Yahoo’s Chief Financial Officer Blake Jorgensen clarified immediately: “She’s just kidding.”

And dashing the hopes of struggling newspapers everywhere Bartz reiterated: “I’m just kidding, I’m just kidding. Hi, Gene, how’re you doing?”

As for Yahoo buying The New York Times: what do you guys think? Is Munster on to something in his “An Open Letter to Carol Bartz“?