That’s Gotta Hurt
[Guest post by DRJ]
The Instapundit notes the continuing downward spiral in value at the New York Times:
“MICKEY KAUS: “Maybe Murdoch Bid on the Wrong Company: New York Times stock falls below $20 a share, down from $50 in 2002. … Soon even Ron Burkle will be able to buy the place!”
UPDATE: Reader George Zachar emails:
Shareholder equity in the New York Times company is roughly $825 million. That’s about the value of the Times’ interest in its new headquarters tower opposite the bus terminal. The implicit value of the Times newspaper and other properties is therefore zero.
I blame excessive ad-discounting.”
Heh.
– DRJ
No matter the what the reason, guaranteed the top floor of NYT will never look inward and consider the possibility that perhaps their biased undies were showing once too often - and that the public is smarter than what they give us credit for.
Comment by Dana — 9/15/2007 @ 12:44 pm
I blame excessive ad-discounting.
Come on, Oregonian. Tell us about that huge windfall of profits that the NYT is raking in because of that MoveOn discount.
I dare you.
Comment by Paul — 9/15/2007 @ 1:09 pm
…the top floor of NYT will never look inward…
Not only that, the top floor masters-of-the-universe will forever condescendingly lecture us on how to run our lives and finances - especially on paying more and more taxes to support their favorite socialist programs.
Comment by Perfect Sense — 9/15/2007 @ 1:11 pm
Oh I dunno. The “controversy” couldn’t have helped, but as Kaus points out, the stock seems to have been in steady decline for years. And evidently they’re not alone:
Forbes
Motley Fool
Re the joke about the lost revenues because of “excessive ad-discounting,” well, I thought the whole point of standby discounts was that it allowed them to fill space that might not otherwise be sold. And I’d bet it’s pretty typical in the newspaper biz.
But as per the Forbes and Motley Fool articles, it looks like quite a few papers are turning in slow classified ad sales numbers.
Comment by Itsme — 9/15/2007 @ 2:13 pm
A Pajamas “Media” site talking about “Shareholder equity” and “ad-discounting.”
Heh, indeed.
Comment by alphie — 9/15/2007 @ 2:14 pm
Sorry, that quote in my post #4 wasn’t from Advertising Age, it was from the New York Times.
IHT/NYT
Comment by Itsme — 9/15/2007 @ 2:29 pm
Alphie - Dazzle us with your analytical capabilities again please. You were so prescient and on target with financial dissection of the Tribune situation that I’ve been waiting for the opportunity for you to give the readers of this site a repeat performance.
Let it rip Alphie. You’re my reverse market barometer. Some people pay big bucks, one way or the other, for investment advice. I can read a blog for free, see what Alphie says and choose to do the opposite.
Your results may vary.
Comment by daleyrocks — 9/15/2007 @ 4:02 pm
daley,
Here ya go:
A banner ad placed on every single Pajamas Media blog generates far less revenue for PJM than a single ad in the NYT.
I will venture a guess)based on PJMs own stats) and say that a banner ad placed on the NYT website costs far more than a banner ad placed on every single Pajamas Media webiste, from Malkin and Instapundit down to that gun counter guy.
So much for the revolution.
Comment by alphie — 9/15/2007 @ 4:15 pm
Alphie:
Once again, you missed the point. Malkin, Instapundit and Patterico etc. did not take approximately $2 billion of shareholder money and turn it into less than $1 billion like the masters-of-the-universe at the New York Times. That would be the very same NYT that constantly lectures us on how we should “invest” our money in the failed government program de jure.
Comment by Perfect Sense — 9/15/2007 @ 4:50 pm
I think it is you who have missed the point again, PS.
It ain’t 2003 anymore.
The war is over…and the MSM won.
A handful of bloggers used their blogs as a springboard to get jobs in…the MSM.
The rest are making &15 a month selling blog ads.
Comment by alphie — 9/15/2007 @ 5:00 pm
alphie,
Here ya go:
A baby drinking a bottle of milk deposits something in its diaper that’s worth more attention than what you deposit on this site.
Comment by nk — 9/15/2007 @ 5:10 pm
Alphie:
The war is over…and the MSM won.
If you believe that, invest everything you have in NYT stock.
Comment by Perfect Sense — 9/15/2007 @ 5:31 pm
The problem the NYT has is that its bias makes it predictable.
People who don’t agree won’t read it, and people who do agree don’t need to — they can get the same from the DNC and MoveOn, for free. Why would anybody pay for it?
Regards,
Ric
Comment by Ric Locke — 9/15/2007 @ 5:56 pm
Has the pro-war crowd forgotten all the support the Times gave and continues to give to their cause?
Judy Miller ring a bell?
Tom Friedman(unit)?
You guys make the Donner Party look restrained.
Comment by alphie — 9/15/2007 @ 6:01 pm
Isn’t Alphie running the NYTimes? Based on its operations it would take someone of his supreme ego to bring it to this.
Comment by Thomas Jackson — 9/15/2007 @ 6:10 pm
And, the same day, the NYT announces that ad revenue is down from the previous year. No connection, surely.
Comment by Kevin Murphy — 9/16/2007 @ 8:49 am
Alphie - Thank you for making my point for me!
Don’t ever change, big guy!
Comment by daleyrocks — 9/16/2007 @ 12:31 pm