NY Times Shares Plunge While It Deeply Discounts MoveOn’s Ad Space
Lost in the outrage yesterday over the New York Times’s decision to discount its ad price for the disgraceful MoveOn.org “Betray Us” ad about General David Petraeus from at least $167,000 to $65,000 (described by NewsBusters’ Brent Bozell as, in effect, co-sponsorship) was this awful financial news:
UPDATE: New York Times Reports Weak Ad Sales
CHICAGO (Dow Jones) — Shares of New York Times Co. hit a new 52-week low Wednesday after the company reported a steep advertising revenue decline in August at the unit that includes its flagship newspaper and the Boston Globe.
Revenue at the publisher’s News Media Group dropped 4.6% from the same month a year ago, to $121.5 million. Classified revenue, traditionally considered the most vital component of newspaper advertising, plunged 20% on weakness in real estate, help-wanted and automotive ads.
New York Times stock (NYT) was down marginally at $20.31 in midday trading. At one point, the shares hit a new one-year low of $20.19.
“ONE-YEAR low?” Try at least ten (that’s as far back as NASDAQ.com charts will go):
NYT’s share price has dropped over 25% in the past four months, and 60% since it acquired what may end up being a terminal case of Bush Derangment Syndrome in the summer of 2002.
Long-suffering NYT shareholders surely long for their own surge. They won’t get one as long as the company is willing to leave over $100,000 on the table for a politically favored advertiser.
Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.
_______________________________________
UPDATE: NYT stock dropped again on Thursday, and actually was below $20 a share for a time.
Hmmm… I think this is actually evidence that excuses the NYT for the moveon discount. Apparently they have a lot of ad space to sell, and it’s not as if MO couldn’t have gone to any other newspaper.
I think the next defense is that the ad rep needed to make quota.
I’m being facetious a little, blackfive notes that generally, you can’t discount for political advocacy, for what should be obvious reasons.
Comment by dave — September 13, 2007 @ 10:19 pm
[…] Sounds to me like the New York Times had something to say, but lacked the courage to say it themselves. Much more at Bizzyblog on this. Filed under: media, Iraq by — Dave @ 7:57 am […]
Pingback by NixGuy.com » The Move On Agenda — September 14, 2007 @ 8:10 am
Hmmm, I wonder why the New York Post’s circulation numbers continue to go up while the NYT’s go down???? You think maybe the New York Post’s ad revenue dollars might also be going up chasing after that increase in circulation????
Tom, how about some facts and figures on the New York Post to see if the advertisers are going elsewhere instead of per liberal assertion that the economy is bad. Yes, the economy is bad for liberal agenda driven companies but good for non partisan or even more horrifically good for conservative run companies.
Comment by dscott — September 14, 2007 @ 10:32 am
I did a quick search on the New York Post (CFC ticker symbol) who is a major competitor of the NYT. If I were Sulzberger’s captive shareholders I would be suing. http://finance.yahoo.com/charts#chart7:symbol=^dji;range=20000103,20070913;compare=nyt+cfc;charttype=line;crosshair=on;logscale=off;source=undefined
Comment by dscott — September 14, 2007 @ 10:56 am
#4, cfc is Countrywide Financial. I’d be tempted to look into NY Post’s finances, but it’s part of NewsCorp, and digging out the detail from the financials would be difficult to impossible.
Info from anyone reading who knows how to get to NYP info quickly would be welcome.
Comment by TBlumer — September 14, 2007 @ 11:07 am
What, I thought CFC was New York Post, sorry, I guess that is one downfall of google and doing a quick search.
Comment by dscott — September 14, 2007 @ 11:12 am
I wonder if the NY Post would comment directly on it’s performance??? Any possibility of contacting someone at NewsCorp or the NY Post? I would think they might relish the opportunity to compare themselves to their competitor. Maybe they could supply a P/E chart of their division?
Comment by dscott — September 14, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
#7, I think the circ changes in the past two years speak for themselves. Ad revenue changes would be nice to know. It may be in Ad Age somehow, somewhere, or it may be in the place where circ figures are published, which is behind a members’ firewall. If I were a FT blogger I’d jump on it. But I’m not. I will be thinking about how to get to the stuff easily ahead of the next circ figures release, which will be on about Nov. 10.
Comment by TBlumer — September 14, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
Sounds like we need to cast some bread upon the waters. Know anyone over there? Or do you know someone who knows someone? I think this angle is too good to let slide, Sulzberger needs to be thoroughly chastised by having the NY Post do a comparison, he would be red faced and sputtering.
Comment by dscott — September 14, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
#9, also note that the times may be commingling its disclosure of ad revs with the Boston Globe and other pubs, making a direct comparison doubly difficult.
Benchmarking NYT against the S&P is plenty damning.
Comment by TBlumer — September 14, 2007 @ 10:14 pm
[…] As for Newser, when I see experiments like it, I start thinking that the experimenters have Munchausen by proxy and a need to describe and have us see news dissemination as being in an unhealthy state. And yet, the reality is, no one needs to see it that way, because, while print’s health may in fact be in doubt, news and its gathering and dissemination couldn’t be more robust. So, in fact, it isn’t unhealthy - it’s strengths and areas that need improvement are shifting. (Although stories like this about NYT shares value and discounting ad space might indicate some serious patches of bad health.) […]
Pingback by Is it the End of News Times, or just a case of Munchausen by Proxy? : Writes Like She Talks — September 14, 2007 @ 11:47 pm