Hey, there! Log in / Register
New Yorkers blame Boston for their problems
By adamg on Tue, 04/21/2009 - 9:03am
Times Co. reports $74.5 million net loss:
The company said the weak results in its newspaper division were "mainly because of significant losses at the New England Media Group," which includes the Globe and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette. The Times Co. does not break out earnings or losses for the group.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
and these people wonder why
and these people wonder why Boston has a chip on its shoulder in regards to NY. Thanks for running our best paper into the ground then blaming us for the fiasco...
Going back to the Boston insecurity thread
I think adamg was being a bit whimsical with the headline.
NYTCo is a corporation. They will report that such-and-such business unit underperformed. There might be internal politics going, or some degree of PR spin to manage perceptions of other units, but it's *totally* not about Boston as an entity.
For the last time, New York barely remembers that Boston exists. It is only stalker drama queen Boston who keeps imagining that the two have a relationship.
I dunno Bloomberg was born
I dunno Bloomberg was born in Medford, his father in Chelsea. At one point Weld was thinking of running for Gov, and not to long ago the specter of having Caroline Kennedy being thrust onto them was imminent. Not to mention the Kennedys they already have. Pound for pound I think that Boston affects NY more then NY affects Boston. NY just has more of an effect due to sheer size.
The Times? Refusing to see
The Times? Refusing to see that the world has changed?
How can -31.6% at NE be worse, dollar wise, than -27.3% at NYTMG?
Because New York is better,
Because New York is better, and therefore their advertising revenue losses reflect not readers abandoning them in droves, but rather the refinement of their advertising so only the best is featured in the NYT.
Because percentages matter
Because percentages matter more than absolute numbers. (To pick a completely arbitrary set of numbers for the purposes of example...) if a company is making two billion in advertising revenue and then that number goes down by a million, that's not a big deal, the things you can do with 1.999 bilion dollars are basically the same things you can do with 2 billion dollars, you just have to make a few minor cuts here or there. But if a company is making two million in revenue and then that number goes down by a million, then there are going to have to be massive adjustments to the company. This doesn't change just because the smaller company is a subsidiary of the larger company.
You are correct, but the
You are correct, but the difference isn't -0.05% v. -50%. Also, NE is cast as the primary reason $75 mil of red ink and I don't see how that makes much sense based on the ad rev losses.