The New York Times newspaper just took a big hit, a hit worth $40 million in the year 2011. Although the shift from print to online publishing in journalism no doubt contributed to the loss of millions, it doesn't help that NYT's writers produce work from a Leftist perspective Americans just aren't interested in reading.No matter how you slice it, it's hard to imagine a lifespan longer than ten years if the NYT continues to lose money at this rate. Looking at the latest balance sheet, net current assets (current assets of $680 million less current liabilities of $440 million) are at $240 million. Current burn rate ($240 million on hand divided by the $40 million annual loss) gives the company six years to live without major structural changes.
Since they don't know if or how to get out of this jam, the first utterly predictable line of defense is for the NYT to respond by (what's that euphemism?) "asking for" and getting expense reductions from their employees, then defeat the whole purpose of the reputed restructuring when the executives pay themselves a substantial amount of those savings a few months after the furor dies down, just like the last time they played this song. It's that, or a number of employees won't bend over and take yet another major pay cut and quit in disgust, which will be precisely what management is hoping for. Trust me, the employees and the union leadership will remember this stuff, and if anyone forgets, I am happy to refresh your memory.
They can't reasonably jack up prices past $2.50 - they'll lose a decent amount of buyers and subscribers, oblivious to the concept of price elasticity.
Always remember - when you're at the NYT and you step out of line, you get whacked.
History repeats itself - first time as tragedy, second time as farce. I'm sure the blog's resident