The internet needs you,” I said to Howard Stern when I called into the show this morning as he was ranting about his contract negotiations with Sirius XM and the possibility that he could take his show and more to the net.
Do it, Howard.
“You made satellite radio,” I told him. “You will make the internet.” For Stern is the one media entity who can absolutely, positively get people to pay online — even me, the alleged opponent of all things paid. Today I pay $12 a month for Stern — more, actually, with my internet account and my wife’s and son’s cars.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
NEW YORK TIMES STOCKS SOARS ON TAKE OVER RUMOURS
Every so often, rumors pop up that Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim is going to buy The New York Times Co., in which he already owns nearly a 7% stake.
And then those rumors quickly get stamped down by Slim, but not before making some waves in the stock market.
And then those rumors quickly get stamped down by Slim, but not before making some waves in the stock market.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
New York Times Stock Soars On New Carlos Slim Takeover Rumors
Every so often, rumors pop up that Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim is going to buy The New York Times Co., in which he already owns nearly a 7% stake.
And then those rumors quickly get stamped down by Slim, but not before making some waves in the stock market.
It just happened again today, and Times Co. shares rose as much as 8% as a result, according to Bloomberg:
Almost 6,400 calls to buy the stock changed hands, 35 times the four-week average and five times the number of puts to sell...
...The publisher’s stock rose 26 cents, or 3.4 percent, to $8.02 at 12:54 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading after hitting $8.38 for the biggest intraday gain since June 10.
But traders shouldn't get too excited. As Bloomberg points out, a Times Co. takeover wouldn't be easy. And Slim's rep told Bloomberg: “We know nothingabout this.” The Times COMMENTED
Read more:
And then those rumors quickly get stamped down by Slim, but not before making some waves in the stock market.
It just happened again today, and Times Co. shares rose as much as 8% as a result, according to Bloomberg:
Almost 6,400 calls to buy the stock changed hands, 35 times the four-week average and five times the number of puts to sell...
...The publisher’s stock rose 26 cents, or 3.4 percent, to $8.02 at 12:54 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading after hitting $8.38 for the biggest intraday gain since June 10.
But traders shouldn't get too excited. As Bloomberg points out, a Times Co. takeover wouldn't be easy. And Slim's rep told Bloomberg: “We know nothingabout this.” The Times COMMENTED
Read more:
Sulzberger Concedes: "We Will Stop Printing The New York Times Sometime In The Future"
At a conference in London, Arthur Sulzberger Jr conceded what we have long been arguing: Someday, the New York Times Company will be forced to stop publishing a printed paper.*
This sounds obvious, but it's a big deal.
The economics of the online news business will not support the infrastructure or newsroom that the printed paper supports.
Unless the New York Times Company can come up with a miracle new digital revenue stream, therefore, it will eventually have to be restructured and
downsized (or sold to a deep-pocketed Sydney Harmon-type who runs it at a loss out of love).
Importantly, even a successful online paywall will not allow the paper to maintain its current cost structure.
We estimate that the NYT currently spends about $200 million a year on its newsroom and generates about $150 million of online revenue. If the paywall is highly successful--attracting, say, 1 million subscribers who pay $100 a year--this will add another $100 million of online subscription revenue (assuming the company doesn't lose ad revenue). With $250 million of revenue, the NYT might be able to sustain newsroom costs of about $100 million.
Now, a $100 million newsroom budget is a HUGE newsroom budget--one that most online publications would kill for. So the New York Times isn't going anywhere. But $100 million is also a lot less than the New York Times's current newsroom budget.
So if Arthur Sulzberger is right that the New York Times will eventually have to stop printing the print paper--and we certainly think he is--his company is likely to have to be restructured.
That is, unless NYTCo can find a Bloomberg
This sounds obvious, but it's a big deal.
The economics of the online news business will not support the infrastructure or newsroom that the printed paper supports.
Unless the New York Times Company can come up with a miracle new digital revenue stream, therefore, it will eventually have to be restructured and
downsized (or sold to a deep-pocketed Sydney Harmon-type who runs it at a loss out of love).
Importantly, even a successful online paywall will not allow the paper to maintain its current cost structure.
We estimate that the NYT currently spends about $200 million a year on its newsroom and generates about $150 million of online revenue. If the paywall is highly successful--attracting, say, 1 million subscribers who pay $100 a year--this will add another $100 million of online subscription revenue (assuming the company doesn't lose ad revenue). With $250 million of revenue, the NYT might be able to sustain newsroom costs of about $100 million.
Now, a $100 million newsroom budget is a HUGE newsroom budget--one that most online publications would kill for. So the New York Times isn't going anywhere. But $100 million is also a lot less than the New York Times's current newsroom budget.
So if Arthur Sulzberger is right that the New York Times will eventually have to stop printing the print paper--and we certainly think he is--his company is likely to have to be restructured.
That is, unless NYTCo can find a Bloomberg
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)