Let's see, what it was it I wanted to say? Oh yeah: Bwaaahaaahaaa!

Is there a tiny, tiny, chance that even advertisers are worried about the ongoing destruction of the reputation of the former "Paper of Record"?

I doubt if the ongoing slant has much to do with the *current* declines in ad revenue...but over time, it seems to me likely that the policies of the Times will significantly impact their readership, with consequence impact on advertising revenues.

Yes, this is a rot at the base and a failure to thrive that set in a long time ago.

After all, it is the Publisher that drives (or can drive) the publication, but the current publisher from the family has been shown to be incompetent time and time again.

Still the family controls the voting stock so he will probably be let slide.

YES, YES, YES......

At one time railroads ruled the economic market in the US of A...........They fell of the surface.

At one time the print media GIANTS ruled the news world......now they are falling of the surface.....

It is the way of things replaced by newer, better, more complete items......

(READ: Trucks took out Rail.....
BLOGS take out GIANT MEDIA)

Duke of DeLand

YES, YES, YES......

At one time railroads ruled the economic market in the US of A...........They fell of the surface.

At one time the print media GIANTS ruled the news world......now they are falling of the surface.....

It is the way of things replaced by newer, better, more complete items......

(READ: Trucks took out Rail.....
BLOGS take out GIANT MEDIA)

Duke of DeLand

However, The New York Times does make money unlike the Washington Times which has never made a cent and hemorrhages money.

Correct.

It's not just that people are waking up to what a dreadful load of crap the Times is. And it's not just the fall in revenue. It's competition. Heard of The New York Sun? Against all odds, they are not only surviving but thriving. I see people on the subways reading it. Go New York Sun!

Trucks didn't take out rail. Regulation did. When freight rail was deregulated, it made a nice comeback. Now let's try deregulating passenger rail...

Yours,
Wince

Audience and reach always drive ad sales. If you're basic demographics aren't what the advertisers want, you'll lose them. Very simple really.

If the Times appeals to a mostly over 45 demographic, they've got problems...because advertisers aren't all that interested in that group. My guess is that the Times readership DOES skew older, because all newspapers do today...which is why many of them are in trouble.

It doesn't help if your circulation is flat or in decline either.

As of 9/30/2003:

USA TODAY (Parent: GCI) was followed by The Wall Street Journal (Parent: DJ), up 16.1% to 2,091,062 after it added 290,412 paid online subscribers to its overall circulation tally. Without the online subscribers, The Journal's circulation was unchanged at about 1.8 million. The New York Times (Parent: NYT) was third at 1,118,565, up 0.5%; followed by the Los Angeles Times (Parent: TRB) at 955,211, down 1.1%; The Washington Post (Parent: WPO) at 732,872, down 1.9%; and the New York Daily News at 729,124, up 2.1%.

Brigitte Trafford, a spokeswoman for Dow Jones & Co., which publishes The Journal, said the company received ABC approval to include qualified online subscribers in January, but it waited until this period to have a program in place to sell ads across both platforms.

The Journal's online edition has 686,000 paid subscribers, but Trafford said the paper counted only those who paid the full price of $79 a year. To qualify under ABC guidelines, the online subscribers must pay at least 25% of the basic subscription price of the print newspaper. That would have been $47.25 for The Journal.

The rest of the top 10: the New York Post, (Parent: NWS) up 10.6% to 652,426; the Chicago Tribune (Parent: TRB), unchanged at 613,509; Newsday (Long Island, N.Y.) (Parent: TRB), 580,069, up 0.2%; and the Houston Chronicle, 553,018, up 0.2%.