The New York Times Company is burning full blast towards oblivion and if they don't figure out a way to pull out of their death spiral soon it won't be pretty. In fact, in the first quarter of 2009 the Times lost an incredible $74.5 million which was far far beyond what analysts had predicted. Here's how the Times describes it's own deterioration:
The New York Times Company reported a first-quarter loss of $74.5 million on Tuesday, compared with a loss of $335,000 in the period a year ago, as it joined the roster of newspaper companies recording the steepest advertising declines in generations.
Advertising revenue at the company’s publishing segment fell 28.4 percent in the quarter, including an 8 percent decline in Internet advertising at the News Media Group.
[...]
The Times Company’s total revenue of $609 million, down 18.6 percent from $747.9 million in the first quarter a year ago, fell more than $20 million short of analysts’ projections.
Of course this abysmal performance is already being spun by the Times itself and the Associated Press as nothing more than a result of a shift in marketing and the poor economy:
Like other major newspaper publishers, the Times Co. is being hit with a devastating double whammy -- a 16-month-old recession and a marketing shift that has diverted more ad spending to less expensive Internet alternatives. At the same time, many people are doing without newspaper subscriptions because they can read much of the same information for free on the Web.
But I think those of us here at NewsBusters know better than that. Surely the economic situation has resulted in a drop in advertising across the board, as Ace of Spades HQ notes:
An ad slump is bad for a lot of people, not just left wing hack newspapers, so it's hard to take too much joy from this. Still, it's possible to take some.
But that certainly isn't the only reason the Times is suffering. Bad management has also been a key factor in the destruction of revenue. Bad management that decided to buy the already failing Boston Globe, which accounted $85 million in losses, and the continued tolerance for bias. And bias certainly hurts because, truthfully, if you consistently alienate large swaths of potential customers through undeniable and absolutely despicable bias its bound to affect your bottom line.
Some might argue that the Times could still turn a profit through their liberal audience but with the recent drop off in political news interest it seems that is no longer possible. Liberals control Congress and the White House so the day to day workings of Washington are less interesting to them. They aren't picking up their New York Times or Boston Globe to see what "atrocity" George Bush and the evil Republicans committed today.
Here's some free advice for the Times, ditch your terrible management and incorporate the genuine balance and true professionalism that people want from their news sources. Because if you don't eliminate the hackery, which has become so common and so obvious, soon you won't be around to do so in the future.
That rings especially true when you consider this report from the New York Post that expresses just how cash strapped your company is:
According to its first-quarter earnings report, the Times said it had cash and cash equivalents totaling $294 million.
However, $260 million of that is earmarked to pay off debt that matures in March 2010, effectively leaving the company with $34 million.
Heck, some analysts give you less than a year to survive. So you'd better get started right away...



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
April 22, 2009 - 16:19 ET by mattmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TX3UqY8KZpU
An Earth Day Suggestion
April 22, 2009 - 16:49 ET by allanfWell put Nelson.
On this resplendant Earth Day a suggestion for the Times. Save the trees and some money: stop your PRINT EDITION.
Live what you preach.
The Fat Lady Has Sung...and Crushed the Gray Lady
April 22, 2009 - 16:44 ET by farstar99To the Times:
When you embarked on a political snowjob and sold your souls to Obama, did it not occur to you that it was a one-shot?
When you sell your credibility, you only get one chance at corrupting the system.
After that, you are irrelevant. Both to us and your fellow cult members.
You have neither credibility nor readers.
Yet you think you can sell ad space.
Why?
Nobody wants you.
Why would they?
As they said about Pravda (the first one, not you), "What's the point of picking up a newspaper, when you know what's going to be in it?"
Soon, their masthead will
April 22, 2009 - 16:47 ET by Chris NormanSoon, their masthead will read: "All the News That's Fit to Post"
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
NYT
April 22, 2009 - 17:13 ET by easygoerI'll miss the Travel section.
The NY Times forgot the main thing...
April 22, 2009 - 17:21 ET by jefflebowskiliberals don't read. They get their talking points from Keith Olbermann and unwashed leftists. But they don't read. Conservatives read and we don't read biased trash. Die, NY Times, die!
Angry White Dude
www.angrywhitedude.c...
In academia...
April 22, 2009 - 17:40 ET by jdripperthe mantra is to publish or perish, well if applied to The New York Times I say let them perish.
Jack
"If at age 20 you are a conservative then you have no heart. If at age 30 you are a liberal then you have no brains." Sir Winston Churchill
I just wonder how these
April 22, 2009 - 17:59 ET by d1carterI just wonder how these numbers compare to the performance for the same period for the Wall Street Journal?
What a fine day!
April 22, 2009 - 18:31 ET by yobobbybIn honor of Earth Day I cut a tree down in my backyard and am happy to report that I didn't wail like the retards in the EarthFirst youtube video, and then I read that the NY Times continues down the path towards insolvency. Excuse me while I light up a cigar and have a beer to celebrate this fine, fine day! This makes me want to hug my guns.
I predict the print version
April 22, 2009 - 18:47 ET by StewMcKinI predict the print version of the Times will continue to be drastically cut over the next 5 years, but it won't go away entirely. The website isn't going away either, so all concern over the NYTimes not being around to bash anymore shouldn't be blown out of proportion. They'll give us many, many more years of entertainment.
To bad about the Times
April 22, 2009 - 18:47 ET by general companyIf they only would had figured out that they needed to hire writers, not liberals. What a perfect example of Obamas stealfromus plan.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Oh come on...we have people
April 22, 2009 - 18:54 ET by bigtimerOh come on...we have people like Pelosi and Kerry saying the govt. (us) should help these failing papers with a govt. bail-out....we'll be paying for this too before it's over.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Not to worry Pinch
April 22, 2009 - 18:56 ET by acumenJohn Kerry to the rescue.....with our tax dollars.
acumen... LOL...look
April 22, 2009 - 19:08 ET by bigtimeracumen...
LOL...look above...two seconds apart we were with our posts.
GMTA!
I can tell we are both pretty well informed...hehehee
Good seeing you here...just got here myself basically.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
The final blow
April 22, 2009 - 18:59 ET by DustBunny01When the NY Times finally dies and prints off its last edition, I believe every conservative should purchase a copy of this last edition for the sole purpose of driving a wooden stake through it.
NYT Will Be Liberal To the Bitter End
April 22, 2009 - 20:29 ET by prosanity"Here's some free advice for the Times, ditch your terrible management and incorporate the genuine balance and true professionalism that people want from their news sources."
Not only will they not change, they will congratulate themselves as heroic liberals for 'holding the line' as the grey lady crashes and burns.
All of civility depends on being able to contain the rage of individuals. ~ Joshua Lederberg
The end is near.
April 22, 2009 - 20:29 ET by zachlindGosh, gee, darn, too bad.
i'll miss that sunday crossword.
April 22, 2009 - 20:40 ET by puredmashiealways a challenge to complete it. saturday crosswords are the most challenging. i've never been able to finish a single one. i've finished a few friday puzzles, but those were very unproductive days at the office.
swing hard in case you hit it.
There is a God
April 22, 2009 - 22:10 ET by VinncyGThank you for listening, To coin an old twilight zone episode, "It's good that you did that son, it's real good, now send it to the corn field".
Send the NY Times to the corn field.
→ There is a John Kerry
April 22, 2009 - 22:15 ET by Cool ArrowAnd he's planning as we speak, to thwart the Will of God.
Obama - A whole new dementian
"The New York Times Company
April 22, 2009 - 23:07 ET by RR GOP"The New York Times Company reported a first-quarter loss of $74.5 million on Tuesday"
HA HA HA HA HA HA
Happy Earth Day, Libtards!
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).
Thats around $25 million
April 22, 2009 - 23:36 ET by GeronLThats around $25 million per month in losses.
They need to declare bankruptcy
Going Down Fast
April 23, 2009 - 05:05 ET by packmanOkay, let's see...lost 74.5 million in the last quarter...hmm...could that be because they peddle an increasingly unwanted product that nobody wants? When a company no longer has a product that people want and they ultimately go under -- I think that's known as capitalism. But maybe Honest John Kerry will bail our your sorry a**es -- or maybe we should just think of a photo of a ship sinking, going down fast by the bow.
Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread... ~Thomas Jefferson