That is according to Editors Weblog's simple summary of the brilliantly incisive (er?) analysis by Scholars and Rogues (full marks for spotting the obvious), and I couldn't agree more.
Problem is, for a lender to see the big picture, the NYT Company needs to present them a VERY BIG PICTURE, one full of game changing ideas and innovation, not just one that says the advertising revenue is going to crash out by the end of 2010 if we're lucky, and even then, we're still screwed.
Come on NYT: show us the picture and we'll show you the money.
Why in God's name should anyone bail out the NYT if either they are a) interested in making money (which is why I think they could be bailed by people who aren't) or b) typical investors/lenders who require something to invest in/lend to CALLED A NEW BUSINESS PLAN, because the current one is, well, crap.
It's really not that complicated: we all know advertising is tanking, that it will take till we're dead for online revenues to take up the strain and that newspaper demographics are trending into a slurry pit.
And we all know the banks are about to ask questions about the lending to which the NYT doesn't have answers without killing themselves and their staff and what essentially they are. So they just have to come up with a plan.
Easy to say isn't it?
Well, actually, yes it is. Because I and others have them. I'm not chucking them up here for free however.
It reminds me of Friedman's typically naive recent column imploring the international community to 'show Obama the money' (and troops and aid and diplomatic support etc).
As one astute IHT reader pointed out, first, on what basis should ANYONE show the US government ANY money?
Obama has to show US (that would be us, the world, not the U.S.A) the BIG PICTURE, his business plan for the world and America, just like the NYT has to show a lender some god-damn half-decent ideas about its future.
Snap to boys and girls and smell the coffee.
Opinion: Questioning the The New York Times business model?
Posted by Rosemary D'Amour on November 12, 2008 at 4:18 PM
For over 100 years, The New York Times has set the standard for print publications in the US and all over the world. In an article on Monday, Scholars and Rogues, a blog offering commentary and analysis on breaking news, said that the legacy could be close to its end, because the Times has "significant debt coming due, and insignificant cash on hand."Scholars and Rogues comments that the Times did not accept the Internet as an "effective colleague" to distribute news and information, regarding it as "ineffective." This has now proven "costly," as the numbers indicate.
Scholars and Rogues reports that while the Times' online readership remains high, "it's not translating into sufficient online advertising revenue." According to Henry Blodget of the Silicon Valley Insider, based on recent NYTCo. filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Times owes $453 million more than it has. The Times' business model, which has been applied by many publications, is "faltering." It faces the problem that every other newspaper in the United States faces - how to make online adverting pay off fast enough to keep up with costs. According to Scholars and Rogues, "Internet ad revenues, though increasing, will not produce sufficient revenue soon enough to stave off drastic, perhaps catastrophic, changes in the newspaper industry."So the question is, what can the NYT do to cut costs and remain afloat? Will cutting jobs be enough? Will they need to end print editions? An interesting point, "any change in the Times company's business model will influence the readership habits and information needs and wants of millions of people." Keeping this in mind, they will need to find a solution that both allows them to maintain their status and have the resources to provide quality news coverage.
Posted by Rosemary D'Amour on November 12, 2008 at 4:18 PM
For over 100 years, The New York Times has set the standard for print publications in the US and all over the world. In an article on Monday, Scholars and Rogues, a blog offering commentary and analysis on breaking news, said that the legacy could be close to its end, because the Times has "significant debt coming due, and insignificant cash on hand."Scholars and Rogues comments that the Times did not accept the Internet as an "effective colleague" to distribute news and information, regarding it as "ineffective." This has now proven "costly," as the numbers indicate.
Scholars and Rogues reports that while the Times' online readership remains high, "it's not translating into sufficient online advertising revenue." According to Henry Blodget of the Silicon Valley Insider, based on recent NYTCo. filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Times owes $453 million more than it has. The Times' business model, which has been applied by many publications, is "faltering." It faces the problem that every other newspaper in the United States faces - how to make online adverting pay off fast enough to keep up with costs. According to Scholars and Rogues, "Internet ad revenues, though increasing, will not produce sufficient revenue soon enough to stave off drastic, perhaps catastrophic, changes in the newspaper industry."So the question is, what can the NYT do to cut costs and remain afloat? Will cutting jobs be enough? Will they need to end print editions? An interesting point, "any change in the Times company's business model will influence the readership habits and information needs and wants of millions of people." Keeping this in mind, they will need to find a solution that both allows them to maintain their status and have the resources to provide quality news coverage.
Source: Scholars and Rogues
P.S If you were on the ball today you could have had yourself some NYT Company action for as little as $7.33. Currently trading, as of about 20 minutes ago, at $7.57. That's nearly 46% down over 3 months.
$7 here we come and half the value of the world's largest economy's No. 1 newspaper site blown away in 3 months. Oh yeah, there's a future on the Internet for quality content providers. Just not much money.
This year is like watching the Berlin Wall coming down.
New York Times Co
(NYT:NYQ) NYT on other Exchanges
7.57 USD Last
-0.13 -1.69% Change
1.5M Above Average Volume
Data as of November 13, 2008 14:17 exchange time. Market data is delayed by at least 20 minutes
LOOKING FOR A CHRISTMAS BOOK GIFT TO BUY?
"Books about cosmopolitan urbanites discovering the joys of country life are two a penny, but this one is worth a second glance. Walthew's vivid description of the moral stress induced by his job as a high-flying executive with the International Herald Tribune newspaper is worth the cover price alone…. Highly recommended." The Oxford Times
'I read A Place in My Country with absolute unalloyed delight. A glorious book.'
Jeremy Irons (actor)
‘Ian Walthew was a newspaper executive with a career that took him round the world, who one day did a mad thing. He saw a for-sale sign on a cottage in the Cotswolds, bought it, resigned and moved in. For the first few weeks he just lay on the grass in a daze. Then he started talking to his neighbours and digging into the rich history of this beautiful part of England. Out of his inquiries grew this affecting and inspiring memoir.What sets it apart from others of its ilk is the author’s enviable immunity to cliché and his determination to love his homeland better than he used to. His elegiac account of relearning how to be an Englishman should be required reading for anyone who claims to know or love this country.’ Financial Times
Amazon.com
For more reviews visit ianwalthew.com
10% Discount for NYT employees; 15% Discount for IHT Employees
International Herald Tribune
IHT
New York Times
The NYT Company
No comments:
Post a Comment