Article

2007-06-25 Home Front Economy

By Thomas Lifson

Like some robber baron capitalist of yore, the New York Times is telling the remaining full price readers of its print product that they will pay more and get less, the same message it has been sending advertisers for years. But far from a sign of strength, this move is an indicator that the slow motion business collapse of the New York Times Company may be picking up its pace.

Rest at the American Thinker. Bwha-ha-ha.

Posted by Steve White 2007-06-25 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11132 views ] Top

#1 snicker

Posted by Angaiger Tojo1904 2007-06-25 00:42|| 2007-06-25 00:42|| Front Page Top

#2 In the jargon of strategic consulting, this sort of price increase, asset liquidation and quality cut is known as "milking a cash cow" and indicates that a company is "harvesting" a business - realizing that it has no growth prospects, and that its role is to provide cash to invest in other more promising ventures. How long the business will limp along is anyone's guess. People still buy The Farmer's Almanac today.

The railroads that were doing this in the 60's and 70's re-invented themselves when freed of the yoke of regulation, and are quite prosperous now. If only Pinch could blame regulation.

Posted by Bobby 2007-06-25 05:58|| 2007-06-25 05:58|| Front Page Top

#3 Oops. That was supposed to be italic, not bold. PIMF.

Posted by Bobby 2007-06-25 06:02|| 2007-06-25 06:02|| Front Page Top

#4 It became known several years ago now that the Sulzberger family that owns the preferred stock of the NYT wants to crash the stock price, so they can re-privatize the paper under their sole ownership.

Their common shareholders are going bananas about this, because according to the rules, even though they should determine how the company is run, only the special stockholders, the Sulzbergers, do, because of a special weird rule of NYT stock.

And the common shareholders lost the court fight to assert their rights, so there is nothing left they can do except watch themselves lose money until either their shares are worthless, or they are near worthless and the Sulzbergers buy them back at a fraction of their purchase price.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-06-25 08:21|| 2007-06-25 08:21|| Front Page Top

#5 The Sulzberger family's ambitions are all very nice, but neither subscribers nor advertisers are going to come back just because the New York Times is privately owned. Were I so foolish as to still be a stockholder, I'd sell for whatever I could get. Why ride the airplane into the ground when there's a parachute with only a few holes in it?

Posted by trailing wife 2007-06-25 13:25|| 2007-06-25 13:25|| Front Page Top

#6 At first I read this as: "The Incredible Stinking New York Times." I guess both are right.

Posted by JohnQC 2007-06-25 15:33|| 2007-06-25 15:33|| Front Page Top

#7 Faster, please.™

Posted by xbalanke 2007-06-25 15:40|| 2007-06-25 15:40|| Front Page Top

#8 I remember when it happened to Esquire. It was awfull, in time it had a readership of one, Scott Carey.

Posted by Shipman 2007-06-25 20:51|| 2007-06-25 20:51|| Front Page Top

21:10 newc
20:17 SteveS
18:44 magpie
18:33 Frank G
18:33 badanov
18:26 Hellfish
18:23 Hellfish
17:40 swksvolFF
17:34 Ebbuger Whuque4103
17:30 Ebbuger Whuque4103
17:02 Melancholic
16:27 Gravilet Snanter4154
16:20 Chaise Speaking for Boskone7897
16:02 Skidmark
16:01 Skidmark
15:46 Skidmark
15:41 Skidmark
15:37 swksvolFF
15:36 Skidmark
15:34 Skidmark
15:27 Skidmark
14:48 NoMoreBS
14:31 NoMoreBS
14:16 NoMoreBS