More

New York Times Co. Earnings Tumble In Q1

Nyt

MICHAEL LIEDTKE   04/21/11 04:48 PM ET   AP

The New York Times Co.'s first-quarter earnings fell 58 percent as a decline in print advertising revenue outweighed an increase in digital advertising revenue.

Quarterly declines in print ad revenue at the Times Co. and other publishers narrowed through most of last year. But the Times Co.'s latest results suggest the improvement may be stalling.

The company said Thursday that it earned $5.4 million, or 4 cents per share, during the three months ending March 27. That compared with net income of $12.8 million, or 8 cents per share, a year ago. The latest earnings matched the average estimate of analysts polled by FactSet.

After stripping out one-time items in both quarters, such as severance payments and tax-related adjustments, this year's performance looked even worse: earnings of 2 cents per share, compared with 11 cents a year ago.

Revenue fell 4 percent to $567 million, about $7 million below analysts' projections.

Times Co. shares fell 20 cents, or 2.2 percent, to close Thursday at $8.92.

The Times Co.'s print ad revenue dropped 7.5 percent in the first quarter compared with a year ago; the decline was 7 percent in the fourth quarter.

Print advertising remains the major source of revenue for most newspapers, even as their publishers focus on expanding offerings on the Web and mobile devices to draw digital advertising.

The New York Times newspaper is seeking additional digital revenue by charging readers for full access to its website and mobile services. The new fees, which range from $15 to $35 every four weeks, started in Canada on March 17 and expanded to the rest of the world on March 28, the day after the first quarter ended.

The Times Co. said Thursday that it has attracted more than 100,000 subscribers so far. The company said those numbers exceeded expectations but cautioned it was too early to estimate how many it will retain after their promotional periods expire. Times Co. CEO Janet Robinson said the fees have also attracted more print subscribers because they get online access for free; she didn't provide specifics during a conference call Thursday.

Ken Doctor, a newspaper industry analyst at Outsell Inc., said the initial response to the Times' new digital fees is encouraging, even though he believes most people may have been lured by sharp discounts. "Just getting all those people to click on something showing they are willing to pay is meaningful," he said.

Publishers have experienced strong growth in their digital ad revenue. But the gains haven't been nearly enough to offset the deterioration of print advertising, where rates generally have been 10 times higher than digital ads.

Publishers are hoping digital ad rates will improve eventually, especially if people keep buying tablet computers such as Apple Inc.'s iPad. Publishers believe readers will spend more time with newspapers on tablets than they do on a desktop computer, giving them the leverage to charge advertisers higher rates on tablets.

For now, the gap between print advertising losses and digital ad gains remains substantial.

Digital ad revenue at the Times Co., for instance, totaled $83.6 million, an increase of 4.5 percent, or $3.6 million, from last year. But the 7.5 percent drop in print advertising translated into about $17 million less than last year. That left the Times Co.'s print advertising at $215 million in the first quarter. By contrast, print ad revenue totaled more than $460 million in the same period five years ago.

Executives said the decline worsened in March because advertisers got more worried about consumer spending because of higher gas prices. Japan's massive earthquake and nuclear plant crisis also contributed to broader economic uncertainty.

Although executives said the trends have been better in April than March, it seems unlikely to lead to higher ad revenue in the current quarter. The Times Co. said ad revenue this month is down about 4 percent from last year. Ad revenue in March fell 9 percent.

Like other publishers, the Times Co. has been raising its subscription and newsstand prices in recent years to help offset losses in print advertising. Those price increases have caused the Times Co.'s circulation revenue to surpass its print advertising revenue in some recent quarters, an industry rarity. It happened again in the first quarter. Circulation revenue was $228 million, about 6 percent more than print ad revenue.

But the higher prices have driven away some readers. The Times Co.'s first-quarter circulation revenue declined 4 percent because fewer newspapers were sold. Robinson said The New York Times' weekday circulation averaged 905,000, a 4 percent drop from last year, while Sunday circulation averaged 1.3 million, a 3 percent drop.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST MEDIA

The New York Times Co.'s first-quarter earnings fell 58 percent as a decline in print advertising revenue outweighed an increase in digital advertising revenue. Quarterly declines in print ad revenue...
The New York Times Co.'s first-quarter earnings fell 58 percent as a decline in print advertising revenue outweighed an increase in digital advertising revenue. Quarterly declines in print ad revenue...
Filed by Jack Mirkinson  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 131
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
01:05 AM on 05/16/2011
The publisher of The New York Times and 17 other daily newspapers says its first-quarter earnings fell 58 percent because of a decline in print advertising revenue.The results released Thursday by The New York Times Co. is the latest reminder of the challenges facing newspaper publisher...
______________
Tom.
caravan sales
08:05 PM on 04/24/2011
As a journalism student it really pisses me off hearing people bad mouth the times. This is the American standard for journalism.
photo
ohiomark
Rush Geek
02:24 PM on 04/24/2011
The public is finally catching on to the liberal bias in the NYT and are saying "no thank you".

If you want something to fail, put liberals in charge of it and it won't be long.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jtwalk45
11:29 AM on 04/24/2011
Dear NYT please put advertisement on your online content and turn a profit. If you charge online viewers a fee they will flee.
You have a business section in your paper please read it.
I have stop looking at the NYT online and removed my Apps.
01:59 AM on 04/24/2011
Maybe great newspapers, like great civilizations, rise and fall. And the two are related. Sad but true.
09:17 PM on 04/23/2011
Doesn't the National Inquirer now have more integrity than the New York Times?

While the New York Times was admitting to blatant lies & misrepresentations in their reporting, the Inquirer was watching John Edwards checking into a Beverly Hills hotel to spend some quality time with his love child and baby mama.

Good job!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
gypsynomad
I dwell in possibility.
07:24 PM on 04/23/2011
The movie ~State of Play~, fictional characters indeed, but speaks volume about investigative journalism. One need to spend money for those kind of Journalists for real news.
. Just sayin`....
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BronsonMac
06:09 PM on 04/23/2011
Hmmmm. Carry the water for the Democratic left... lose a bunch of money. Call Ripley.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ESerafina42
Abandoned by wolves, raised by Republicans.
02:58 PM on 04/24/2011
Like when they hyped the lies about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
gypsynomad
I dwell in possibility.
05:43 PM on 04/23/2011
Oh sure...all these years cutting and posting articles from NYT at no cost is the result of this. NYT is sure to recover , but is hp is going to survive ? Long time posters struggle to see their comments are going nowhere, leaving the site in disgust , and the trolls are moving in instead.
05:31 AM on 04/23/2011
Check out this Pew Research survey

http://stateofthemedia.org/2011/mobile-survey/

Most people won't pay for news online.
03:51 AM on 04/23/2011
It is probably in no large part to aggregation sites like this one that are helping put the NYT and other media organizati­ons out of business. They should PAY for their use of their Times articles. Amazingly, Ariana has spent years attacking them while taking their stuff for free.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/dec/18/entertainment/la-et-onthemedia18-2009dec18
04:41 AM on 04/23/2011
She attacked them on April Fools day with the mock paywall.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
gypsynomad
I dwell in possibility.
05:31 PM on 04/23/2011
fave
02:56 AM on 04/23/2011
This apparently is just temporary. As they make their transition, revenue will probably go down long before it goes up. Hopefully, their short term pain will be worth the long term gain.
08:35 PM on 04/22/2011
It's nice to see people running away from that liberal rag.
ydrittmann
Vitter patronizes women.
03:24 PM on 04/22/2011
O Judith Miller! What hast thou wrought?
02:56 AM on 04/23/2011
Hard to blame on just Judy, but thanks for doing so. She did help brign on the war with Iraq.
08:08 AM on 04/22/2011
I don't know what the Times is thinking. They have way too much competition to just decide to charge. Its halting strategy is bizarre. It's $15 for four weeks but really it's 99-cents. Most people can read it free anyway, but they'll lose idle visitors, hurt their advertising and be worse off than ever. Their complaints about aggregators are a canard. The fault lies elsewhere. I hope they can get out of this tangle. More:
http://blog.unbiasedeye.com/2011/04/new-york-timess-99000-question.html
02:57 AM on 04/23/2011
I think you are absolutely right. So they make a little money in the short run, but a hundred thousand subscribers not all that many, really.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
gypsynomad
I dwell in possibility.
05:46 PM on 04/23/2011
No really , you can not read it free anymore .
06:35 AM on 04/24/2011
You're not referring to the 'for free' vs 'without charge' issue, are you?