L.A. Times Circulation Drops Again
I have fallen down on the job, failing (until now) to note that the L.A. Times circulation continues to tank.
My defense: it’s a Dog Bites Man story.
I have fallen down on the job, failing (until now) to note that the L.A. Times circulation continues to tank.
My defense: it’s a Dog Bites Man story.
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
Powered by WordPress.
And there was much rejoicing.
Christoph (9824e6) — 11/5/2006 @ 2:04 pmAfter shorting NYT stock and winning I paused to
NortonPete (42ccfd) — 11/5/2006 @ 3:21 pmthink of just how can these newspapers might turn things
around. ( You need to think this way when you are short
a stock ).
Well if they employed real journalists that actually went
out and investigated a story instead of just parroting AP crap and plying there own liberal agenda,
they might make a mark in this information hungry world and sell a newspaper.
I thought about this briefly and then shorted another 5000 shs of NYT
This is yesterday’s news. You might just as well have reported that Air America’s ad rates are low, or that there’re plenty of available seats at Dixie Chicks Concerts.
mokus (539ee5) — 11/5/2006 @ 6:13 pmschadenfreude again and again
rab (fb89bf) — 11/5/2006 @ 7:14 pmDon’t you mean a “Dog-Trainer bites man” story?
otcconan (75a79e) — 11/5/2006 @ 7:14 pmFrom Sunday’s Chicago Tribune:
The auction for Tribune Co. moves into a new, more delicate phase this week.
After a disappointing first round of bids, the company’s challenge is to defeat the perception that Tribune is only worth around $8 billion–about as much as it paid for Times Mirror Co. six years ago.
dtim (845a07) — 11/5/2006 @ 9:37 pmWho is setting the line on when the Sunday edition circulation falls below one million? I will guess by Memorial Day Weekend 2008.
JVW (45dc0b) — 11/5/2006 @ 10:38 pm– – David Hiller in a bulletin to LAT staff 10/30/06
Wow. When you spin for a living, I guess you get so used to it that you even try to spin to yourself and staff. D’you think the staff believes it any more than readers believe their reporting?
RWO (9a9cde) — 11/6/2006 @ 7:15 amWTF is a “newspaper”?
AndrewGurn (c37ea2) — 11/6/2006 @ 9:20 amTalk about pulling the covers over your head so you don’t see the bogeyman.
Bill Schumm (33ab73) — 11/6/2006 @ 9:22 amWhat I really find puzzling is that all the papers that have been steadily losing readership have done really nothing to correct their problem. It’s like they are completely oblivious to what’s going on. Why don’t the stockholders insist on a postive change in direction? It’s baffling.
…adn yet for all the chest thumping that somehow the right is putting someone out of business, their online views are through the roof…along with a majority of the MSM papers who are losing paper-distribution…way to go guys!
Third Eye Open (26654a) — 11/6/2006 @ 12:27 pmUp here in Ventura County they are selling a Fri,Sat,Sun package for $39/year. They are losing money on this deal, the guy who drives by at 5am to throw the paper costs them more than $39/year. Desperate times, but, oh, how I love it.
How far is the bottom? When the circ bottoms out, and when 500,000 turns into 525,000 they can brag about a 5% increase.
TimesDisliker (8aeabd) — 11/6/2006 @ 1:38 pmI’m most impressed by the spin:
Internally, the Times has a positive spin on the numbers, stressing readers not circulation and claiming that “these are solid and encouraging results, reflecting efforts all across the company.”
I guess that the Times has some way of determining that each copy is read by more people than previously — a notable change considering that household sizes are normally shrinking. 🙂
Trouble is, newspapers get paid by circulation, by the number of copies sold, not by how many people read each copy. And it’s a bit difficult to see how they are going to sell this bovine feces to advertisers.
Perhaps they are referring to the Times online. Can’t say that I know a whole lot about the Times site, but using The Philadelphia Inquirer’s online edition with the pop-up blocker means I can see the content, and skip the ads.
Dana (3e4784) — 11/6/2006 @ 2:08 pm