The media has been filled with reports about how poorly the advertising at The New York Times Company (NYSE: NYT) has been doing. The company has $400 million in debt due next year. It is trying to sell its part of the parent company of The Boston Red Sox. NYT is even attempting to mortgage its headquarters building.
Bringing in new money won't do much long-term if revenue keeps falling. Cutting costs would.
One of the sections of The New York Times that must be costly to run is its business section. Looking at all the bylines, the staff must be in the dozens. But, a great deal of what runs in the business pages is not unique. Most of its is covered by Reuters, Bloomberg, FT, or The Wall Street Journal.
As the cost of being in the news business stays high and revenue drops, networks are pooling reporting resources. Newspapers are sharing coverage of certain geographic areas. Websites such as Politico are offering newspapers coverage of Washington to save money on having bureaus following the federal government.
The New York Times might be better off if it cut a deal with Bloomberg or the FT to handle its business section. The paper would still be competitive with The Wall Street Journal, and the move might be the start of a system to save a lot more money by doing something similar with other parts of the Times.
Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 24/7 Wall St.











Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
12-30-2008 @ 4:28PM
BHarrson said...
Why not reduce staff and adjust salaries a little . . . wouldn't that be better than putting all of them out of work? Outsourcing requires an additional "profit level" for the companies doing the work; and they pay their employees less . . . right? That ONLY pays/enriches the managment of the outsource company, right? And that is MORE money for "management", not employees, right? So how does that help the majority of the people????