butchM wrote:
mdude85 ... dig a little deeper ... the past two years of dropping numbers is nothing compared to the previous 8 years or so ... 8.7% of next to nothing they had a decade ago isn\'t much of a drop
Sure, I\'ll do you one better. How about circulation for the last 20 years? This data shows that the NYT has seen about a 9% drop in circulation from 2000-2009, compared with about a 35% drop for the LA Times and a 25% drop for both the Washington Post and NY Daily News. From 1990 to 2000, the Times\' circulation fluctuated, but remained almost steady decade-over-decade.
8.7% of next to nothing they had a decade ago isn\'t much of a drop ... hence the need for a $250M loan and giving up 17% ownership ....
Carlos Slim, who made the $250M investment, already owned a 6.5-7% of the company, and now owns 17%. Its losses over the years have come from advertising declines as well as lost revenues from its subsidiaries such as the Boston Globe, which saw a 23% dip in circulation and which almost folded completely due to arguments over union concessions.
NYT closing stock price on 7/12/2000 was $41.31 ... at the market closing today 7/12/2010 .... $9.01 ... isn\'t that a drop of nearly 80% of value?
Market value, not value. And in every quarter from 2000-2009, NYT was paying out a positive dividend to shareholders. If you take a look at New York Times Company\'s balance sheet, you will see it doing quite well in earnings from on-line advertising compared to most other papers. Its digital ad revenues make up over 25% of its total ad revenues and it posted a profit in Q1 2010. I\'d say right now, the NYT has done a pretty good job making the foray into digital distribution better than most of its peers have.
Jul 12, 2010 at 04:42 PM
Previous versions of mdude85's message #8651814 « Photojournalism and altering photos »
