Tag: Boston Globe

Maybe I’m part of the solution after all.

Media Nation has learned that the Sunday-versus-weekday revenue split at the Boston Globe may be more dramatic than I had previously heard. In 2008, the Monday-through-Friday editions brought in $113 million. The Saturday and Sunday papers’ take was $259 million — just a shade under 70 percent of the total.

I don’t have separate numbers for the Sunday paper alone. But, traditionally, Saturday papers are the smallest and least lucrative of the week, which means that the Sunday Globe accounts for the overwhelming majority of those weekend revenues. Several days ago, I wrote that the Sunday Globe was thought to account for 60 percent of revenues; it now appears that figure might have been low.

Given that, it makes sense for the Globe to push electronic distribution for its weekday papers as long as it’s done with an eye toward preserving the Sunday print edition. If the Globe could save on printing and distribution costs and entice weekday advertisers into the Sunday edition, its revenues might drop, but its profit margin could rise. (Or, since this is a newspaper we’re talking about, rematerialize.)

Also this morning, a couple of tidbits on the New York Times Co.’s efforts to sell the Globe:

• A bid by former Globe executive Stephen Taylor, a member of the family who sold the paper to the Times Co. in 1993, may be facing some obstacles. Word is that the group is still trying to line up investors. Not that those investors won’t be found, but it doesn’t sound like Taylor is ready to write a check just yet.

I also hear that the San Diego-based Platinum Equity group may be losing its ardor for the deal — which puts Taylor in a strong position if he can come up with the money. People are buzzing about the addition of former Globe publisher Ben Taylor (a cousin of Stephen’s) and longtime Boston journalist Mary McGrath to the Taylor group. But they’ve got to find the dough.

Given that the Taylors sold the Globe for $1.1 billion, and that they are now trying to buy it back (along with the Worcester Telegram & Gazette) for a mere fraction of that, you’d think money wouldn’t be a problem.

But the $1.1 billion was split among many, many members of the Taylor family. And investors these days aren’t exactly clamoring to get into the newspaper business.

• On the other hand, Poynter Institute media-business analyst Rick Edmonds writes that recent statements from the Times Co. suggesting it might hold onto the Globe are, in all likelihood, so much malarkey (via Ralph Ranalli at BeatthePress.org).

The reason: the Times Co. needs to take a loss by the end of 2009 in order to offset capital gains it’s realized by selling off other properties. In addition, Edmonds says:

I don’t think taxes alone would impel a sale. The Times Co. may also fear getting stuck with another round of operating losses (or find itself forced to lay off more employees, with renewed labor upheaval). Also, the company may have worn out its welcome both inside the paper and with Bostonians, who would welcome a Taylor family restoration.

As Ranalli notes, Edmonds is the guy who cracked the code earlier this year in explaining the Times Co.’s claim that the Globe was on track to lose $85 million. According to Edmonds’ analysis, though that number was real, the paper’s actual cash operating loss for 2009 would probably be around $20 million. All of a sudden, the Times Co.’s demand for $20 million in union concessions made sense.

When Times Co. chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. told Globe employees in August that the paper’s finances had improved and the company was in no hurry to sell, it struck me mainly as a ploy to drive up the price. Edmonds’ latest fits right in with that.

Photo (cc) by Tony the Misfit and republished here under a Creative Commons license. Some rights reserved.

The Stephen Taylor-led group that’s seeking to buy the Boston Globe from the New York Times Co. is getting more interesting by the day.

Last week the Globe reported that the group includes Mary McGrath, who’s best-known for producing two Christopher Lydon-hosted shows on public radio, “The Connection” and “Open Source,” and who is a formidable journalist in her own right.

She also hails from a legendary family of journalists that includes her brother Charles “Chip” McGrath, a staff writer for the New York Times; her brother Jim McGrath, an editorial writer for the Albany Times Union; and her nephew Ben McGrath, a staff writer for the New Yorker.

On Saturday the Globe revealed that Stephen Taylor, a former high-level executive at the Globe, has been joined by his cousin Ben Taylor, a former Globe publisher who was removed by the Times Co. in 1999. (The Taylors sold the Globe to the Times Co. in 1993.)

Is it OK to start feeling optimistic?

Here’s the latest edition of On the Record, an e-mail circulated to employees of the New York Times Co. by chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and president Janet Robinson. A copy was obtained by Media Nation. Enjoy.

On the Record … From Arthur & Janet

Vol. 3 Our Circulation Strategy

September 14, 2009

To Our Colleagues,

A reader recently wrote, “I feel that the importance of The Times is so great that I would pay $70 million for access to the most important paper in the free world.”

We appreciate the thought but while things are difficult for newspapers, they haven’t reached that point.

As our advertising revenues have declined, we have asked our readers to bear more of the cost of our journalism, as many other newspapers have done with their readers. They have demonstrated a willingness to do so. As a result, in the first half of this year we have seen gains in circulation revenues at The Times, the Globe, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, the Santa Rosa Press Democrat and some of our other regional newspapers. In this issue of On the Record, we’ll talk about our circulation strategy and how it has improved our financial results.

Let’s start with our underlying premise. We believe that we provide very high-quality news, information and entertainment to our readers. We also believe that our premium quality journalism warrants a premium price. This is why we have experimented in the past with online subscription models. It’s also why we continue to explore ways to derive more revenue from our digital content than we get from the advertising and other secondary revenue streams we have today. We plan to discuss that in a future issue of On the Record.

Today circulation revenues make up a greater percentage of the Company’s revenues than they did in the past. Five years ago, advertising accounted for 67 percent of our total revenues and circulation made up 27 percent. In the second quarter of this year, advertising totaled 54 percent of our revenues and circulation was 39 percent. Circulation revenues have grown to the point that last year they were the highest they have been in our history.

We don’t mean to suggest that there have not been any cancellations or that circulation volume hasn’t declined. It has. But there have been far fewer cancellations from price increases than we expected at both The Times and the Globe. The reader retention rates for The Times and the Globe are enviable — for subscribers of two years or more, the rate is roughly 90 percent for both papers. In fact, The Times has more than 830,000 readers who have subscribed for two years or more, up from 650,000 in 2000.

Some of the volume declines at our newspapers are attributable to our deliberate strategy of focusing on individual readers who pay to get their paper rather than discounted copies, such as those distributed at hotels, conventions and other venues. Advertisers value these individual readers since they are deeply engaged with our newspapers.

Why do readers continue to embrace print? The reason newspapers have endured for more than 400 years is because they work. People understand how newspapers are organized — if a story is above the fold, it’s more important than below the fold. If it appears on the front page, it’s more newsworthy than one inside the paper. Readers enjoy the serendipity of finding something new that they didn’t realize they were interested in but discovered in the pages of their paper. Newspapers are portable. They offer a point in time assessment of the news.

In order to get The Times in the hands of even more readers, we are working with organizations across the country to print and distribute the paper. Most recently we announced a new agreement to print The Times in Nashville, enabling us to expand newsstand and home delivery to readers in the area and to better serve our current readers in Tennessee, northern Alabama, northern Mississippi, eastern Arkansas and western Kentucky. Today The Times is printed at 26 locations across North America.

We expect the print editions of The Times, the Globe and our regional newspapers will be around for years to come. But we are a news company, not a newspaper company. We are committed to offering our consumers our content wherever and whenever they want it and even in ways they may not have envisioned — in print or online — wired or mobile — in text, graphics, audio, video or even live events. Because of our high-quality journalism, we have very powerful and trusted brands that attract educated, affluent and influential audiences. These audiences are a true competitive advantage as we move into an increasingly digital world.

We hope this is helpful in understanding our circulation strategy. If you have any questions on this or other issues, please send us an e-mail at: arthur_and_janet@nytimes.com.

Arthur & Janet

New York Times Co. chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and president Janet Robinson met with employees of the Boston Globe yesterday. And it appears there is nothing new to report.

According to stories in the Times, the Globe and the Boston Herald, Sulzberger said the Globe is still for sale, though an improving financial picture means there’s no hurry.

It also sounds like folks at the Globe remain angry over the way they were treated earlier this year, when the Times Co. threatened to close the paper if the unions failed to approve $20 million in concessions.

I could go on. But you get the idea. Ralph Ranalli has more at BeatthePress.org.

Boston Herald business reporter Jay Fitzgerald talks with newspaper-industry analysts who say a group headed by Stephen Taylor — a member of the family who sold the Boston Globe to the New York Times Co. in 1993 — may be emerging as the leading candidate to buy the Globe from the Times Co.

That would fit with the Globe’s own recent reporting, which identified the Taylor group and a California-based real-estate investment company, Platinum Equity, as serious contenders. All things being equal, Times Co. chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. would presumably rather sell to a newspaper guy than to an out-of-state company that may be more interested in the property than the news.