The title of this blog may turn out to be correct, but most likely I am off by about 2 years. And speaking of two years, in the past 24 months I have blogged several times about the imminent demise of the Gray Lady, the former Newspaper of Record.
Certainly it is not only the New York Times that is suffering, many newspapers are, the decline in the relevancy of printed news began shortly after the phenomenon known as television swept the nation. The advent of the internet and web delivered media hastened the printed paper to the precipice of it's grave.
But not all print media is failing. You have to keep one thing in mind; all media, print, TV, radio and web have one thing in common, they survive solely on advertising. Some papers are doing great at selling to their market and generating income, two other NYC newspapers, the Daily News and the New York Post are not turning record profits, but they are comfortably in the black. Many papers have learned how to market themselves in print and on the web to get readers and viewers in both mediums.
And then you have the stodgy NY Times, which chose to turn it's back on it's vaunted history of being the Newspaper of Record and instead over he past two decades p*ssed on it's history of being a bastion of truth. In order to appear profitable the NY Times is looking at selling one of it's two remaining assets of any value, it's interest in New England Sports Ventures, owners of the Boston Red Sox, Fenway Park and majority stake in the cable network that broadcasts their games.
While considered to be a good investment and guaranteed to be sold for more money than the purchase price Times Co is likely to toss in the Boston Globe newspaper as an extra, making that investment a net loss. And regardless of how much more the Red Sox are worth now than when purchased, in this economy it may not make up for the write off of the Globe. (In 2006 Jack Welch was considering a purchase offer for the Boston Globe for between $550MM and $600MM but Times Co refused to sell, it is now valued at about $20MM.)
With their roughly 17% stake in NESV valued at roughly $166MM the New York Times can show profitability for a year. (Times Co is asking $300MM which is laughably high in this economy that some would argue they helped to drive down). But then they are left with only one asset left... The New York Times name. And quite frankly they mortgaged that when they stopped reporting the news and adopted their biased slant on almost everything they print.
With their roughly 17% stake in NESV valued at roughly $166MM the New York Times can show profitability for a year. (Times Co is asking $300MM which is laughably high in this economy that some would argue they helped to drive down). But then they are left with only one asset left... The New York Times name. And quite frankly they mortgaged that when they stopped reporting the news and adopted their biased slant on almost everything they print.
Like any pathological liar you can only run that game so long before people stop believing anything you say. To recover from that type of self inflicted wound takes time, usually years, to rebuild that trust... and after the sale of their last real asset the time they have left can likely be measured in months, far less than is needed.
No comments:
Post a Comment