Speaking of
institutions that seemed impervious to the recession,
The New York Times announced Monday that it will be cutting 100 jobs in its newsroom, about 8 percent of the news staff, according to, well,
The New York Times. The paper will first offer its employees buyouts, then make layoffs if not enough people volunteer. The buyouts will provide union workers three weeks' salary for each year they've been with the paper and two weeks for nonunion employees.
The Times earned $73.8 million last quarter, compared to $158.1 million a year ago. The loss of earnings mostly comes from falling advertising revenue. The paper's ad revenue decreased by 28.4 percent this quarter, which is slightly better than the second-quarter drop of 33.1 percent, but still devastating enough to necessitate trimming 100 jobs.
The company is also reducing its freelance budget and removing certain sections of the paper. These changes come on top of layoffs in spring 2008, and a 5 percent pay cut for all staff that
The Times initiated earlier this year.
Part of the problem here is obviously the recession, but newspapers are in bigger trouble, as more and more users flock to their mostly free online content. This means declining subscription fees and an increasing reliance on revenue from online advertising. It's leading many papers to consider charging for online content in some capacity, an idea that would alienate many readers and might not even be legally possible. More on that later in the week.
Are you surprised to see The New York Times hurting? How would you react if they started charging for online content?
Comments (5)
This is really not news at all. The trend has been occurring for awhile now. The fact that they just started placing ads in their paper shows they are hurting. Furthermore, all paper sources are hurting because the invention of the internet. I know, shocking right? Charging for online content would make sense, because it would be keeping up with the times. Many websites charge for use, what's wrong with NYT charging? I'm sure a lot of thought went into this post, but most of this was just common sense of why this trend is occurring: a. the shift toward the internet b. environmental reasons (better for the environment not use loads of paper) c. cheaper overhead.
thanks for subbing♥ :))
Supply and demand, if the paper is failing, it means they are failing to adapt.
@kvdubs@xanga - I know the trend isn't news—as I journalism buff, I've been very aware of the decline—but the 100 buyouts/layoffs is. But yeah, I'll try to write something more about the charging for online content issue today or tomorrow.
@interstellarmachine@xanga - It's true, hopefully we'll start to see some positive improvements as papers learn to adapt.