The New Orleans Times-Picayune May Reduce Frequency of Publication -- NY Times

No they haven't. Revenue will drop. They know this.

As long as they can cut enough costs, profits will be retained.

They see the trend. Revenues are dropping right now. Before long, they'll be under water.

Disagree with the solution if you like, but it's not wrong to act before you start losing money. It's prudent.

 

Um, actually they are making money. Have been the whole time. They're just not making as much as they were before.

One of the four papers that just cut staff had, in 2010, "the second-best year ever in revenues" according to the publisher at the time.

 

U don't know what you are talking about. The papers are making money.

 

Read what I wrote again. I didn't dispute that the paper(s) is/are making money.

I disputed the idea that the moves are intended to "keep the revenue high."

Revenue will continue to drop - even faster than if they had done nothing.

But, cost will drop even more (they hope), so that profits will be retained.

 

It's not an idea. It's reality.

 

What's reality?

Revenues are not going to be kept high. They are going to drop. You can't go from seven day a week publication to three days, and "keep the revenue high".

They know revenue will drop. That's why they're cutting spending so dramatically. They think it's their only chance to maintain profits.

 

Kindly? You really don't even know. You have business experiences, they are not to be discounted, but you have taken those experiences and transplanted them onto some all-seeing template of How the World Works, in which you take wild flyers on motivations, paradigms and decisions you've only researched at best (intuited at worst), and, at some point, your presuming to have in-the-skin perspective on all topics plays to diminishing returns. You apparently know what <i>we're</i> thinking and what <i>they're</i> thinking, and you telling us to reread what you think we and they think seems to be a never-ending, self-serving game of Shift.

 

Huh?

Business to long term projections. They see their revenues are dropping. They see the trend. Nothing is happening to reverse this trend.

If they do nothing, they will be under water soon enough. Then what?

When business and/or government don't react until it's too late, we all say, "how did they not see this coming."

Well, they see what's coming, and they're acting. Will it work? Probably not. Will the content suck, compared to what it is now? Yeah, it will. (Though, let's be honest, how good a paper was the T-P on a daily basis? How much of their content was already wire copy?)

Is there a better solution? I haven't heard one. Have you?

Advance has always been a generous employer. Their Condé Nast portfolio made a shit ton of money, and since it's a privately held company, and therefor doesn't award stock options, it's executives and editors were famous for their bonuses, town car service, and the corporate cafeteria.

But, revenues are down their too. Everybody needs to carry their own weight

How is the T-P going to have a chance at remaining profitable unless it drastically cuts costs?

 

By changing what it sells? Or how it sells it? Or by re-imagining what constitutes a reasonable profit?

Or maybe if Si hadn't lost $125 million dollars launching 'Portfolio' none of this happens.

 

Is there an example of someone doing this, and succeeding? I'm sure they'd be happy to follow a successful model.

Very possibly true. But, since it did, they need to make the money up somewhere.

If 'Portfolio' had made millions, maybe it could subsidize losses elsewhere. Oh, well.

 

I note without surprise that you did not consider the idea of any Newhouses taking a smaller profit.

 

That would be nice, but who are we kidding?