Get it? Hohoho.

So: As you may have heard, Groupon began trading this morning, and the stock immediately leapt up from its $20 per share open to $28. That’s a 40 percent leap, and it made CEO Andrew Mason, at least temporarily, worth around $1.3 billion.

That number also valued the entire company around $18 billion — about three times what Google offered to pay for the daily deals innovator last year.

Obviously, the number is going to bounce around throughout the day, so we’ll revisit this at least once more. And now back to our regularly scheduled programming …

The allegation is part of a critical portrait in the book of Mr. Gates, with whom Mr. Allen formed a friendship in grade school that evolved into one of the iconic partnerships of American business. The book, “Idea Man: A Memoir by the Co-founder of Microsoft,” is scheduled to go on sale on April 17. A draft of the memoir was viewed by The Wall Street Journal. An excerpt of the book appeared on Vanity Fair’s website early Wednesday.

The book gives a revisionist take on some details of Microsoft’s history and the relationship between Mr. Gates and his former partner, the two of whom have long been viewed as cordial if not close friends.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Dear Ross,

Perhaps more than anyone, BoomTown is thrilled to have you back in the Internet ops game, after several years on the sidelines.

Besides introducing an exciting new character and plotline into the daily digital drama set in Sunnyvale, Calif.–kind of like when one of Alexis Carrington’s ex-husbands returned after a bout with amnesia on “Dynasty”–it’s clear you are not going to be a shrinking violet.

Plus, you know how to handle drama after all those crazy years herding digital cats at News Corp.’s MySpace.

In other words: Nobody puts Ross in the corner!

But it’s a very big job you have, running both Yahoo’s massive media properties, as well as its giant sales organization–especially after all those years of long lunches as a venture investor.

Thus, I prepared a short list for you–kind of a Yahoo cheat sheet–to cut out and put in your cyber-wallet, and pull out if the need should arise:

10. If you have any internal emails, product roadmaps, acquisition plans and–especially–juicy memos, please immediately forward them to kara@allthingsd.com via the secret Gmail account every Yahoo staffer has. (Don’t worry, everyone does this! Really!)

9. If anyone offers you $31 a share for Yahoo, take it.

8. If someone asks you the question, “What is Yahoo?”: Run for the hills.

7. If anyone tries to drag you back to Sunnyvale from Los Angeles, resist, even after what happened to Lloyd Braun. There are no advertisers nor any significant digital media folks in Silicon Valley, however much anyone tells you there are.

6. If a billionaire shareholder activist named Carl whom you used to canoodle with about taking over Yahoo calls, please refer to No. 8.

5. If you can locate where Yahoo co-founder and former CEO Jerry Yang has gotten to of late–he has been sighted at Yahoo “strategery” meetings and playing golf with advertisers–please send his coordinates to kara@allthingsd.com. I am not a stalker. Well, only a little bit.

4. If you have to ask who Judy is, you have already lost, because Judy is actually in charge at Yahoo. (By the way, since you are both from Jersey, work that angle hard!)

3. If a smiley, cheekboned, Don Draper-looking dude calls from AOL wanting to do a “reverse merger” and offers a ride on Air Tim to discuss it, please refer to No. 8.

2. If you feel frustrated and have the need to utter naughty words and curses, stifle it! That’s a job for the CEO!

1. Ignore me.*

* At your peril.

Microsoft bigwig Bill Gates got hip-checked off the top perch as the richest man in the world by Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim (pictured here), on the annual Forbes list of the world’s Richie Riches.

Slim came to the rescue of the New York Times (NYT) a year ago, forking over $250 million to help the cash-strapped media company.

Often in the No. 1 spot, Gates actually got shoved off in 2008 by megainvestor Warren Buffett (now No. 3), with whom he is good friends.

Gates returned to the top rank in 2009, and now Slim–a telecom-and-more tycoon–has surpassed Gates’s net worth of $53 billion slightly with a $53.5 billion kitty.

Here are some of the other U.S. tech dudes–mostly based in Silicon Valley–on the list, in the Top 100:

No. 6: Oracle (ORCL) CEO and founder Larry Ellison ($28 billion)
No. 24: Google (GOOG) co-founder Sergey Brin ($17.5 billion)
No. 24: Google co-founder Larry Page ($17.5 billion)
No. 33: Microsoft (MSFT) CEO Steve Ballmer ($14.5 billion)
No. 37: Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen ($13.5 billion)
No. 37: Dell (DELL) CEO and founder Michael Dell ($13.5 billion)
No. 43: Amazon (AMZN) CEO and founder Jeff Bezos ($12.3 billion)

Both Apple (AAPL) CEO and co-founder Steve Jobs (No. 136 with $5.5 billion) and Facebook CEO and co-founder Mark Zuckerberg (No. 212 with $4 billion) rank in the longer list.

How else to explain a weird spike in New York Times (NYT) shares?

Sometime after noon today, traders started bidding the stock way up, from $11 to $12, though it’s now dropping back down again. As I write this, shares are moving down to the $11.60 range, which is still a jump of six percent, without any obvious reason.

Unless you count the news today that the paper is printing international editions in Bosnia and El Salvador (really).

Looky here (click chart to enlarge):

Briefing.com (via Barrons) posits that the spike is based a supposed rumor that Carlos Slim, the billionaire who made a high-interest loan to the paper last year, now wants to buy the whole thing.

But if something that nonsensical can move the market, why stop there? Why not suggest, for instance, that investors were tickled pink about the new photo slideshow tool the Times is showing off on its front page? (It really is pretty cool. You should check it out.)

Oh, for the record, the Times has nothing to say about this. Per spokeswoman Diane McNulty: “It’s not our practice to comment on Internet rumors.”

Meanwhile, as Adam Isserlis at Rubenstein Communications notes, the Times isn’t the only newspaper stock popping today: E. W. Scripps (SSP) is up more than 12 percent in a flat market. No discernible reason for that rise, either. Oh, and Gannett (GCI) and Media General (MEG) are up too.

So give Mark Zuckerberg credit: By allowing anyone in the world to see his own profile–and most everything associated with it–the Facebook founder is at least putting on a good show. The message here: Look. I’m a billionaire. And if I’m willing to share all of my life to the outside world, then what’s your problem?

That assumes, of course, that this was Zuckerberg’s intent. But it’s now 12 hours since True/Slant’s Kashmir Hill noted that his profile was open to the public, which has prompted a series of stories just like this one.

And since anyone can still see almost all of Zuckerberg’s profile, including all 306 of his photos, I’m assuming that this is indeed what he wants to do.

UPDATE: Yep, totally intentional, Zuckerberg says. On Facebook, of course:

For those wondering, I set most of my content on my personal Facebook page to be open so people could see it. I set some of my content to be more private, but I didn’t see a need to limit visibility of pics with my friends, family or my teddy bear :)

Note that not everything about Zuckerberg’s Facebook life is open to the public–only his 901 friends, for instance, have access to his cellphone number and AIM handle. (Thanks to the sharp-eyed reader–and Zuckerberg pal–who pointed this out.)

But you don’t really want to chat with Mark, right? You just want to look at his candid snapshots. Here’s my favorite, culled from Gawker’s edited gallery.

Carl Icahn, the activist billionaire investor who made such a noisy fuss in his quest to force management and other changes at Yahoo, is taking a much quieter leave from the Internet giant’s board.

He apparently has told the Yahoo (YHOO) board that “there was not a need at this time for an activist investor” and that he has a lot of other companies he invests in to focus on.

That’s true, of course, given a spate of troubled investments that Icahn is dealing with.

But here’s BoomTown’s quickie analysis: Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz completely ignores him.

In fact, Bartz often has gone out of her way to take little gibes at Icahn since she got the top job in January, whether it’s to say he called her too much or that he could try to fire her if he did not like the job she was doing.

For example, she just dissed him publicly in a piece in Forbes, tossing off a saucy insult:

“Icahn is just another shareholder. What’s he going to do, fire me?”

But Yahoo was cordial to Icahn as he departed, even if a lot of people at the company who had battled him were likely thinking: “Don’t let the door hit you on the way out!”

“Carl has been an important member of our Board and has helped us through some significant transitions,” said the Yahoo statement. We are all grateful for his active role shaping the future of Yahoo! and wish him well in all his endeavors.”

Icahn in the second board member to leave under Bartz’s tenure.

Frontier Communications (FTR) CEO Maggie Wilderotter announced in late September that she was stepping down from the board by year’s end.

It will be interesting to see who–if anyone–will comes on board as a director and, of course, if there are more departures. After the departures of Wilderotter and Icahn, there will be 10 directors.

(Here is BoomTown’s No. 1 pick still in that regard.)

In taking his leave, Icahn praised the recent search and online advertising deal Bartz struck with Microsoft (MSFT), noting that it will “provide great long-term benefits, the potential of which many still do not understand.”

Nice final toss to try to spike the stock, Carl! But the MicroHoo deal, which has yet to be approved by regulators, was likely cold comfort for him.

Icahn sank large sums of money in Yahoo with hopes of a big score via the hostile takeover attempt by Microsoft at a price upward of $30 a share.

After that deal tanked, Icahn has seen his stake decline in value.

He sold 16 percent of his Yahoo shares in late August, leaving him with a 4.5 percent stake, or about 63 million shares.

It is also not clear today if Icahn intends to unload more of the stock.

In 2008, he couldn’t buy enough, scooping up the stock at much higher prices.

After mounting a proxy fight–including the lobbing of a series of poison-pen letters–against former CEO and co-founder Jerry Yang and his management team, Icahn got board seats for himself and two others (John Chapple and Frank Biondi) in July of 2008.

As Digital Daily’s John Paczkowski put it perfectly then:

“Having so persuasively argued that Carl Icahn is a doddering Luddite with no articulated plan for Yahoo other than the company’s sale to Microsoft, Yahoo has taken the logical next step and appointed the activist shareholder to its board of directors.”

At the time of the fighting, Yahoo used a quote from Icahn to insult him: “It’s hard to understand these technology companies.”

In a way, that is a pretty accurate description of Icahn’s long wrangle with the Silicon Valley icon.

And, while some might not agree with my take, this is the way the Yahoo world ends for Icahn: Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Here is Icahn’s entire letter to the Yahoo board:

To the Yahoo! Board of Directors:

I am hereby tendering my resignation as a director of Yahoo! to take effect immediately.

When I joined the Board, the company was in a state of turmoil. In the period since then, we have all worked together to achieve much for the Company, most notably bringing Carol on to be the CEO and then consummating the search deal with Microsoft. I am proud to have played a role in both these decisions. Carol is doing a great job and I believe the Microsoft transaction will provide great long term benefits, the potential of which many still do not understand.

I don’t believe that it is necessary at this time to have an activist on the Board of Yahoo! and currently, my attention is focused on other matters. As a result, I do not presently have the time that is necessary to devote to the business and affairs of Yahoo! required if a board member is to fulfill his fiduciary duties to the shareholders

Again, I want to thank the members of the Board for acting so responsibly during my tenure. I look forward to maintaining my relationship with each of you.

Sincerely,

Carl Icahn

If you’re a media mogul, you might note the symbolism of a Google (GOOG) co-founder boosting a group dedicated to overhauling intellectual property law.

If you’re a cold-hearted cynic, you might note that at least this is a bonafide donation made by private individuals, as opposed to the $6.5 million that Brin’s company has invested in his wife’s “personal genetics” start-up.

But since I don’t fall under either category, I’ll just make this note, directed at other nonprofits looking for a billionaire’s donation: It helps if you can leverage family ties.

In this case, very close ties–Wojcicki’s mother, Esther Wojcicki, chairs the Creative Commons board of directors.

Now we know. BusinessWeek’s Jon Fine talks to people who have seen the black book for BusinessWeek, which McGraw-Hill (MHP) has indeed put on the block. The numbers are brutal. Fine:

The data state that BusinessWeek lost around $20 million on revenues of $147 million in 2008, and that slightly smaller losses are projected in 2009 on revenue of around $135 million. These losses do not, however, include key corporate overhead items, such as rent and certain infrastructure-related costs. When all those items are factored in, the total loss figure essentially doubles, said two executives who saw the data.

Not surprisingly, those numbers seem to have scared off every traditional publisher that might be a logical buyer. The list of nonacquirers includes Time Warner’s (TWX) Time Inc., News Corp. (NWS) (which owns this Web site), Bloomberg and Thomson-Reuters (TRI).

So who does want this thing? Fine suggests that Open Gate Capital, the private equity firm that bought TV Guide for $1 plus debt last year, may be up for a similar transaction. Another possibility: Billionaire Bruce Wasserstein, who’s already shown a penchant for high-profile properties, like New York magazine.

How much is BoomTown and everyone else in Silicon Valley trying to nab a copy of Ben Mezrich’s likely-to-be-entirely-made-up-but-who-cares tale of dirty doings at Facebook?

Muchety-much! So much so that I called all my book industry contacts–hey, I am a published author, ya know!–even though I have not actually completed reading a book since the Internet started and gave me permanent attention deficit disorder.

But, so far I have come up peanuts in grabbing an early copy of Mezrich’s tome, “The Accidental Billionaires,” which is set to come out July 14.

Facebook is not pleased, of course, and will likely be challenging Mezrich’s work as specious dreck. But the drama around the book should be interesting, to say the least.

More so, since this week also came news that actors Michael Cera and Shia LaBeouf are being considered to play founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg and that David Fincher, the director of the lugubrious Brad Pitt snoozer, “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” is “attached” to the movie version.

Even better: “West Wing” creator Aaron Sorkin will pen it and actor Kevin Spacey will produce the Columbia Pictures film, which will be called “The Social Network.”

Well, Hollywood sure came up with an original title!

It certainly does not signal the juiciness of the proposal for the book–which did manage to leak out last year–with a lot of tale tales in it that seem to have pretty much tracked on its oddly purple subtitle of “The Founding of Facebook: A Tale of Sex, Money, Genius and Betrayal.”

The cover–which you can see on the book’s Facebook page (the delicious gall of Mezrich!)–features a spilled martini glass and a red bra flung nearby.

Martinis? Red bras? Sex? Facebook? Really?

Obviously, Mezrich has not actually met Zuckerberg, who is a very nice geekish young man, but who has approximately the sex appeal of a rack of Facebook servers.

Powerful yes! Spockish? Yes! Sexy? Um, no, no, no.

I will not even begin to parse the red bra thing, although I am attributing the martinis to stylish former COO (and now MySpace CEO) Owen Van Natta.

But, apparently, the sex part seems to have to do with Zuckerberg starting the company with others while an undergrad at Harvard University, as a scheme to meet some ladies.

I would say there are easier ways to attract the womenfolk–not that I could give tips or anything–but whatever!

Thus, since I cannot get my mitts on the book (yet!), here’s my list of 10 completely made-up, utterly fabricated, just-call-me-Jayson-Blair things that should be in the book.

10.) Facebook was actually going to be called OnlyPrettyLadyFacebook, but cooler heads prevailed.

9.) The Wall? A clever plot by Zuckerberg to build his online service on a fascist construct, touting his hegemony over all he surveyed.

Wait, that actually happened, and now some Russians are even investors.

Long live the Zuckrepublic of Palo Alto!

8.) Reason for stealing, oops, borrowing, oops again, completely separately developing an exact replica of ConnectU social network at Harvard:

The Olympically muscle-headed Winklevoss twins used to beat up the brainy Zuckerberg on his way back to the dorm, prompting a “Revenge of the Nerds” plot line.

7.) Facebook’s Beacon advertising? All Randi Zuckerberg’s idea, so she could find out what she was getting for her birthday from her billionaire-on-paper brother.

6.) Zuckerberg’s famous flip-flops were made in China under dubious working conditions. Wait, that’s true too.

5.) The 20-something Zuckerberg is actually 93 years old, a real-life version of Benjamin Button, which would explain the social awkwardness and staring-into-space-sometimes thing.

4.) The no-breast-feeding-pictures controversy pretty much proves no one is interested in bras or, more precisely, what goes in them at Facebook.

3.) COO Sheryl Sandberg is a cyborg sent to Facebook from Google for purposes of infiltration. She and her crafty sidekick, Elliott Schrage, will become self-aware in 2012 and hunt down Zuckerberg in a thrilling chase that will also become a movie.

2.) The sex, drugs and rock-and-roll stuff actually all took place at MySpace, which really pisses off certifiably dashing co-Founders Chris DeWolfe and Tom Anderson because, once again, Zuckerberg stole their mojo!

1.) This work of fiction, oops, “fact”-ion, oops again, nonfiction, is probably not going to sell many copies because it will mysteriously be uploaded in its entirety by a widget that will distribute it free to Facebook’s 200 million plus users while simultaneously SuperDuperPoking Mezrich, by throwing real sheep at him.

Don’t say I didn’t warn you, Ben.

(By the way, here is an extra for you: The $15 billion valuation for Facebook, along with all the other Web 2.0 ones? Totally true. Just ask any VC.)

And, in case anyone was wondering what the real Facebook looks like, here is a recent video tour I did of its new HQ in Palo Alto, Calif.:

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090624/boomtowns-top-10-list-of-fact-challenged-revelations-that-should-be-in-the-facebook-tell-all-book/feed/ 6 http://allthingsd.com/20090522/will-facebook-say-da-to-russian-investors/ http://allthingsd.com/20090522/will-facebook-say-da-to-russian-investors/#comments Sat, 23 May 2009 00:46:07 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=7683 Here’s the newest twist in the Facebook valuation/funding saga: Russian investors have reportedly offered to sink up to $350 million in Mark Zuckerberg’s social network–at two different valuations. The Wall Street Journal says investment group Digital Sky Technologies has offered to spend $200 million on a chunk of the company’s preferred stock at a $10 billion valuation and to buy up to $150 million worth of the company’s common stock at a $6.5 billion valuation.

Reached for comment, Facebook spokesperson Brandee Barker offered up the boilerplate no comment: “Facebook is a private company, so as a matter of policy, we don’t typically share details about our financial plans or comment on rumor and speculation.”

But everyone else has been speculating about the value that Facebook and outside investors place on the company, and whether Facebook needs to raise any money at all.

We do know that in 2007, Microsoft (MSFT) beat out Google (GOOG) for the right to invest some $250 million in the Facebook, placing a $15 billion valuation on the company’s preferred stock. Preferred stock is typically more expensive than common stock because it gives owners the ability to recoup their money before other investors. Facebook later raised another $60 million from Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-shing and $10 million or so from the Samwer brothers of Germany.

And various reports have suggested that employees and others who own Facebook common stock have been recently selling it on the private market for prices that value the company in the $4 billion range.

Facebook has repeatedly said that it doesn’t need additional cash to keep going and that it expects to generate $500 million in revenue this year and begin breaking even in 2010. Last year, the company felt flush enough to offer to buy Twitter for $500 million–$100 million of which would have been in cash.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090522/will-facebook-say-da-to-russian-investors/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20090514/david-geffen-thinks-the-new-york-times-is-a-charity-case-so-what-does-he-want-to-do-about-it/ http://allthingsd.com/20090514/david-geffen-thinks-the-new-york-times-is-a-charity-case-so-what-does-he-want-to-do-about-it/#comments Thu, 14 May 2009 13:10:28 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=7358 More fallout from this week’s Fortune story that disclosed David Geffen’s interest in the New York Times. We’re now seeing a series of stories that say that Hollywood billionaire thinks of the paper not as an investment but a charity case.

BusinessWeek’s Ron Grover says Geffen “doesn’t so much see this as a business venture, but rather as a civic investment.” Newsweek’s Johnnie L. Roberts goes further, suggesting that Geffen would literally turn the Times into a nonprofit if he bought it.

Both Grover and Roberts are longtime media reporting pros, so when they cite sources with knowledge of Geffen’s thinking, I believe them. What I still don’t understand, and what observers and investors I’ve talked to are still puzzled about: How does Geffen plan to do that?

To reiterate: Geffen has reportedly tried to buy the 20 percent stake in the Times now owned by Harbinger Capital, though the two sides couldn’t agree on price. But even if they did, the transaction would only bail out Harbinger, not the Times.

And because the Times has a dual-class stock structure that keeps control of the company in the hands of the Ochs-Sulzberger family, taking on Harbinger’s stake doesn’t give Geffen a foot in the door to the company. It gives him the right to appoint two representatives to the company’s 14-member board of directors, but nothing else. Just ask the Harbinger folks.

Again, there are two plausible ways to acquire the Times:

1. Buy the super-voting shares outright from the Ochs-Sulzbergers, who have said they have no intention of selling. But then again, that’s what the Bancroft family said about Dow Jones, which owns the Wall Street Journal and this Web site. And News Corp.’s (NWS) Rupert Murdoch was able to overcome their objections by offering a 60 percent premium to the company’s share price. Maybe Geffen could try that.
2. Establish a large debt position with the company and exercise the power that comes along with that in the event of a restructuring. The problem: Billionaire Carlos Slim has already done that.

So. Anyone close to David Geffen want to explain what he’s really thinking? I’m all ears.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090514/david-geffen-thinks-the-new-york-times-is-a-charity-case-so-what-does-he-want-to-do-about-it/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20090423/the-limits-of-steve-jobs-powers-even-the-apple-ceo-cant-make-options-interesting/ http://allthingsd.com/20090423/the-limits-of-steve-jobs-powers-even-the-apple-ceo-cant-make-options-interesting/#comments Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:06:45 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=6605 Congrats to the folks at Forbes for a journalistic coup: They’re the first media people to get their hands on sworn testimony Apple CEO Steve Jobs gave last year in a civil lawsuit. A lot of testimony: Jobs talked for three hours, and the resulting document is 119 pages long.

It is, as Forbes notes, “a rare look at Jobs in his own words.”

Alas, Steve Jobs in his own words–at least when he’s being deposed in an options-backdating lawsuit–is mind-numbingly boring. “Just like us!” as they say in the celebrity gossip magazines.

Forbes has taken what it says are the highlights of the transcript and assembled them into an online slideshow, but the best stuff appears to be this bit, where Jobs explains why he asked his board for a giant options grant:

At some point in 2001 Jobs went to his board and asked for a big option grant. In the deposition Jobs said he had simply wanted a pat on the back. “It wasn’t so much about the money,” The Forbes 400 member told an SEC lawyer. “Everybody likes to be recognized by his peers. … I felt that the board wasn’t really doing the same with me.” With all of his prior stock options underwater from the dot-com bust, “I just felt like there is nobody looking out for me here, you know. … So I wanted them to do something, and so we talked about it. … I thought I was doing a pretty good job.”

Wouldn’t it have been nice, he was thinking, if the board had come to him and said, “‘Steve, we got this new grant for you,’ without me having to suggest anything or be involved in anything or negotiate anything. … It would have made me feel better at the time.”

Takeaway: Even billionaires need a back-pat occasionally. But if you’re looking for insight into the psyche of the world’s most famous business leader, that’s about all you’re getting here.

I haven’t seen the deposition myself, so it’s possible that there are other great nuggets buried in the 119 pages, and that Forbes is hoarding them in order to wring out as many stories as possible.

Then again, 119 pages of boredom is exactly what Jobs was trying to produce here in order to avoid further legal trouble with the SEC. Bad for headline writers and voyeurs. Good for him.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090423/the-limits-of-steve-jobs-powers-even-the-apple-ceo-cant-make-options-interesting/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20090421/more-pulitzers-less-money-new-york-times-ad-sales-down-27/ http://allthingsd.com/20090421/more-pulitzers-less-money-new-york-times-ad-sales-down-27/#comments Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:51:16 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=6464 Yesterday the New York Times won five Pulitzer Prizes, and executive editor Bill Keller took a well-deserved victory lap with a speech that reportedly had his newsroom in tears.

But for better or worse, none of that matters to investors, who are trying to figure out what the company’s long-term prospects look like. In the near term, they look terrible.

In the first three months of this year, the New York Times Company (NYT) lost $74.5 million, or 34 cents a share once you factor out one-time charges, on revenue of $609 million. That’s worse than Wall Street’s low expectations of a five-cent loss on revenue of $630.8 million.

The reason, of course, is that the ad market is miserable in general, and even more so for newspapers. The company’s ad revenue was down 27 percent, notably worse than the awful 17.6 percent decline the Times recorded in the last quarter of 2008.

And as in the last quarter, former bright spots like the Internet business have now gone dark as well: Internet revenue was down 5.6 percent, Internet ad sales declined 6.1 percent, and revenue at the Times’s About.com unit dropped 4.7 percent.

Expect more of the same for the second quarter of this year, warns CEO Janet Robinson: “At this time, and it is early in the quarter, we believe the rate of decline in ad revenues in the second quarter will be similar to that of the first.”

The Times has been trimming costs (via salary cuts and layoffs) and has bought itself a bit of breathing room by getting rid of its dividend, taking on a very expensive loan from Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim and selling off assets like its Manhattan headquarters. It still has some moves it can make–it is trying to unload its stake in the Boston Red Sox and to find a buyer for the Boston Globe.

But at some point it’s going to have find a way to start selling more ads again. Because awards alone won’t save the paper–Pulitzers can’t even guarantee their winners’ continued employment.

The Times has stopped providing monthly revenue updates, but it has been pretty good about providing detail via its earnings calls. I’ll be on the road during today’s 11 a.m. call, but will check the transcript and get back to you later with the most interesting nuggets.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090421/more-pulitzers-less-money-new-york-times-ad-sales-down-27/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20090312/video-eli-broad-explains-why-he-wants-to-save-the-la-times/ http://allthingsd.com/20090312/video-eli-broad-explains-why-he-wants-to-save-the-la-times/#comments Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:51:12 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=5178 Why exactly does Eli Broad want to save his hometown Los Angeles Times? He explains in this video clip, an excerpt from his appearance earlier this week at Manhattan’s 92nd Street Y.

As I noted before, Broad is a billionaire who can afford to bail out the paper if he really wants to. But it has become harder for him than it would have six months ago.

Forbes’s newest billionaire ranking pegs his net work at $5.2 billion, down $1.5 billion from last September.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090312/video-eli-broad-explains-why-he-wants-to-save-the-la-times/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20090312/rich-obscenely-rich-divide-closing/ http://allthingsd.com/20090312/rich-obscenely-rich-divide-closing/#comments Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:10:22 +0000 John Paczkowski http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=14743 The souring economy is closing the divide between the rich and the obscenely rich. Forbes just published its annual list of billionaires and it has 332 fewer names this year than last. “Last year there were 1,125 billionaires,” said Forbes CEO Steve Forbes. “This year, it’s down to 793. The typical billionaire is down at least one-third in their net worth.”

Among those who’ve suffered grotesque losses: Microsoft (MSFT) co-founder Bill Gates, who ranks first on the Forbes list with an estimated net worth of $40 billion despite seeing his fortune decline by some $18 billion. Just behind him, in second place: Berkshire Hathaway Chairman Warren Buffett, who saw his net worth fall $25 billion to $37 billion. Finally, telecom magnate Carlos Slim Helu placed third, with $35 billion, down from $60 billion. Combined losses for the three: $68 billion.

“The world has become a wealth wasteland,” Forbes says in its report. “Like the rest of us, the richest people in the world have endured a financial disaster over the past year.”

If seeing your personal fortune slip to $40 billion from $58 billion is disaster, it’s one I think most of us would happily endure.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090312/rich-obscenely-rich-divide-closing/feed/ 0