Best. Tabloid. Front. Ever.

[Boom_70]

Pretty good follow up cover today with picture of the "tweetee"

 

[Azrael]

The New York Post loses tens of millions of dollars every year. And has for decades.

Murdoch's other properties keep it afloat.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_08/b3921114_mz016.htm

 

[YankeeFan]

The New York Post loses tens of millions of dollars every year. And has for decades.

Murdoch's other properties keep it afloat.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_08/b3921114_mz016.htm

I was going to point this out as well.

But, it's also in a very competitive market.

And, if you live in an apartment building with no doorman (like most of New York City), a subscription is pretty much impossible.

 

[imjustagirl]

The best part of any trip to NYC is waking up in the morning, buying a Post at a newsstand, and hitting a bagel shop. Mmmmmmmm bagels and awesome headlines.

 

[Azrael]

Buying a newspaper for the headlines is like buying a muffin just for the top. Which turned out to be a very successful segment of the bakery business.

Which leads me back to why the Post loses so much money. The delivery mechanism alone can't account for all of it. (If you believe rich people with doormen subsidize the Times, then the Post is still up against exactly the same hurdles as the Daily News, which seems to do OK).

If the Post is the people's paper, why can't it break even?

 

[imjustagirl]

I know it's not because the Post pays exorbitant salaries.

 

[YankeeFan]

Buying a newspaper for the headlines is like buying a muffin just for the top. Which turned out to be a very successful segment of the bakery business.

Which leads me back to why the Post loses so much money. The delivery mechanism alone can't account for all of it. (If you believe rich people with doormen subsidize the Times, then the Post is still up against exactly the same hurdles as the Daily News, which seems to do OK).

If the Post is the people's paper, why can't it break even?

A ton of people get the Times (and the WSJ) delivered at work -- and either write it off as a business expense or have it paid for by their company.

They also have subscriptions nationwide.

And, while it's in the nation's biggest market, and loses money, it still sells a fork load of copies. It's circulation is over 500,000 and it's the number 7 paper in the country.

 

[Azrael]

Buying a newspaper for the headlines is like buying a muffin just for the top. Which turned out to be a very successful segment of the bakery business.

Which leads me back to why the Post loses so much money. The delivery mechanism alone can't account for all of it. (If you believe rich people with doormen subsidize the Times, then the Post is still up against exactly the same hurdles as the Daily News, which seems to do OK).

If the Post is the people's paper, why can't it break even?

A ton of people get the Times (and the WSJ) delivered at work -- and either write it off as a business expense or have it paid for by their company.

They also have subscriptions nationwide.

And, while it's in the nation's biggest market, and loses money, it still sells a fork load of copies. It's circulation is over 500,000 and it's the number 7 paper in the country.

Neither the Times nor the WSJ is the best point of comparison. The DN certainly is. Somehow, The Post has been losing money (now +/- $20 million a year) like clockwork since the 1970s.

 

[YankeeFan]

Buying a newspaper for the headlines is like buying a muffin just for the top. Which turned out to be a very successful segment of the bakery business.

Which leads me back to why the Post loses so much money. The delivery mechanism alone can't account for all of it. (If you believe rich people with doormen subsidize the Times, then the Post is still up against exactly the same hurdles as the Daily News, which seems to do OK).

If the Post is the people's paper, why can't it break even?

A ton of people get the Times (and the WSJ) delivered at work -- and either write it off as a business expense or have it paid for by their company.

They also have subscriptions nationwide.

And, while it's in the nation's biggest market, and loses money, it still sells a fork load of copies. It's circulation is over 500,000 and it's the number 7 paper in the country.

Neither the Times nor the WSJ is the best point of comparison. The DN certainly is. Somehow, The Post has been losing money (now +/- $20 million a year) like clockwork since the 1970s.

Does the News make money?

I don't think it's turned many profits in the last 20 years either, has it?

 

[Azrael]

Since they're both privately held, no one knows the exact numbers. The presumption under Zuckerman has been that the DN turns a "small profit."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/business/media/01paper.html

 

[shockey]

circulation means zippo, especially in the nyc market; circulation doesn't pay the freight, adverizing does. and the classic line that still holds true today comes from a high-brow store exec stiff-arming a pitch from a post ad man: 'your readers, sir,' he said dismissively, 'are our shoplifters.'

kind of sums it up. oh, and by the way, the snooze has been hemmoraging money for years, too. it's been like watching two over-the-hill heavyweights hangin' on waiting for the other to drop. the news is making there second move in 15 years from their once-proud 42nd 'superman' building, moving from 33rd street on the west side to south of even the post's old home just off the brooklyn bridge. no doubt lured by dirt-cheap rent from the eager landlords of a new building. i'm told only the sports ed teri thompson has a private office; the other sports eds (assignment, sunday, et al) are yards away in the middle of the city room. no one is happy.

 

[Azrael]

kind of sums it up. oh, and by the way, the snooze has been hemmoraging money for years, too.

Mort Z. can certainly afford to keep it afloat as a vanity project, I guess, but most analysts had the paper as a break-even, both before and after he bought it. The Post has been losing far more money far longer, but plays a loud and necessary part in Mr. Murdoch's political orchestra.