The reason for the change is that articles are no longer written only for the newspaper. Breaking news is posted immediately on the Globe’s websites; stories are then fleshed out, posted again, then put into the process for the next day’s paper and the next day’s web entries. With all that traffic, a reliance on “yesterday,” “today,” and “tomorrow” is an invitation for error.

– Charles Mansbach, Page 1 editor of the Boston Globe, on why the paper will no longer use the words in stories

Times Co. said total advertising revenue at its newspapers, which include the New York Times and Boston Globe, fell 7.3 percent in the latest quarter from a year earlier due to a double-digit rate of decline in print. That compared with a 2.5 percent drop in total advertising in the second quarter.

Digital ad revenue at Times Co.’s newspaper properties increased 6.2 percent to $50.3 million in the third quarter. However, overall ad revenue at the papers was dragged down by a 10.4 percent decline in revenue from more costly print ads.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

That’s supposed to change next month, when the site adds a new “In Focus” photo blog, curated by Alan Taylor. The assumption is that Taylor will be doing something very similar to the work he has been doing at the Boston Globe’s site, where his “Big Picture” site has been averaging eight million page views a month.

It’s fairly easy to describe what Taylor does: He grabs brilliant images–culled from Getty, Reuters and the Associated Press, as well as from a personal network of photographers–and assembles them on a no-frills site. But it’s impossible to describe the photos’ impact, so best to take a minute and see the work he’s been doing at Boston.com.

Back? Okay. Now, head over to check out a few of Gawker Media’s beta sites, which showcase the blog network’s upcoming emphasis on big, pretty pictures.

Again, hard to really appreciate how good this stuff can look on a lot of browser windows, but if you’ve got a big enough display–or more interestingly, if you’re looking at this stuff on a TV screen on your wall, or your iPad screen on your lap–you’ll get the full effect. Which is: This stuff doesn’t really look much like the Web–it looks like TV.

And that’s sort of the point.

Craiglist CEO Jim Buckmaster let one fly yesterday at CNN reporter Amber Lyon for a report on child sex trafficking she did that focused on the role played by the online-classified giant.

It included using a May interview with Craigslist founder Craig Newmark that Buckmaster characterized as an ambush, and he accused Lyon of “mischaracterizing your stunt as a serious interview on this subject.”

He ended by noting that if “[CNN anchor] Anderson Cooper would like to come out to SF and sit with us for an interview worthy of CNN’s viewers, we’ll consider it.”

But Lyon’s bio on the CNN site told a different story:

“Lyon also investigated the sex trafficking of minors on Craigslist. In a CNN exclusive, Lyon brought her findings to the ‘Craig’ in Craigslist, founder Craig Newmark. Her interview left Newmark speechless.”

Actually, Newmark wasn’t exactly speechless, as you can see from the video below–he just declined to answer and was silent, which is quite typical of him.

Nonetheless, San Francisco-based Craigslist has been under serious fire of late from state attorneys general nationwide who are seeking to get Craigslist to voluntarily take down its “adult services” section, which is lucrative, but which they allege is a thinly veiled venue for prostitution.

Today, the Boston Globe posted a tough editorial supporting a voluntary takedown, noting:

“While Craigslist should be lauded for having in place stronger safeguards than many other websites–and the classifieds sections of some newspapers and magazines–the site is, at the end of the day, profiting off of prostitution.”

Ouch.

Currently, the company says it now screens every adult ad before it goes up, which Lyon alleged was not being done effectively.

More to come, obviously, but here’s an open invite for Buckmaster to do a video with BoomTown, although I am nowhere near as glam as Cooper.

Until then, here is one of the CNN videos by Lyon:

And here is the Buckmaster blog:

For Amber Lyon, CNN

I see you’ve now gotten around to requesting an interview with me or a company spokesperson, 90 days after you ambushed our namesake and founder, Craig Newmark, following his May 20th talk on veteran’s affairs and other issues unrelated to craigslist, at a conference in Washington.

You knew Craig was not in management or a company spokesperson, but setting CNN’s ethical code aside, you sidestepped company channels in favor of ambushing our semi-retired founder, complete with a misleading “set up” for your surprise questions. Now that CNN has aired your highly misleading piece dozens of times, mischaracterizing your stunt as a serious interview on this subject, and you’ve updated your “bio” to showcase this rare jewel of investigative journalism, you’re ready to try actually interviewing the company itself on this subject.

There is a class of “journalists” known for gratuitously trashing respected organizations and individuals, ignoring readily available facts in favor of rank sensationalism and self-promotion. They work for tabloid media. Your stunt has veteran news pros we know recoiling in journalistic horror, some of them chalking it up to a decline in CNN’s standards, which is unfortunate.

Seeing how you’ve pinned your career hopes on butchering this story, I’ll have to pass. If Anderson Cooper would like to come out to SF and sit with us for an interview worthy of CNN’s viewers, we’ll consider it.

Jim Buckmaster
CEO, craigslist

Yesterday morning, the pair of Stanford University graduate students who made the hot news-reading iPad app, Pulse News Reader, were ecstatic to be mentioned first–for being among the most promising developers for the new tablet device–by Apple CEO Steve Jobs in his keynote speech at the Worldwide Developers Conference in San Francisco.

But by the afternoon, that flush of entrepreneurial success had turned sour, after Apple (AAPL) informed the two that Pulse was being pulled from the App Store after it received a written notice from the New York Times Company (NYT) declaring that “The New York Times Company believes your application named ‘Pulse News Reader’ infringes The New York Times Company’s rights.”

In an unusual coincidence, the Times Web site was on prominent display on a huge screenshot of the iPad during Jobs’s speech.

Ironically, the Times wrote a big wet kiss about Pulse last week in a blog post titled “The iPad Pulse Reader Scales the Charts,” by tech writer Brad Stone.

“Pulse is a stylish and easy-to-use news aggregator,” wrote Stone. “News organizations still puzzling over their iPad strategies can perhaps derive some hope from Pulse’s success–or at least its price tag.”

No longer. Pulse was down completely by 6:30 pm PT last night.

Reads a notice on iTunes now: “Your request could not be completed. The item you’ve requested is not currently available in the U.S. store.”

“I don’t blame Apple, because they have to respond when contacted by lawyers from the Times,” said Akshay Kothari, a 23-year-old student of well-known Silicon Valley investor Michael Dearing’s Launch Pad class at Stanford, of the letter the media giant sent to Apple (which is below, along with the take-down notice).

“But it was definitely a roller coaster of a day.”

In fact, it has been all up for the past four weeks, since Kothari and 22-year-old Ankit Gupta released the Pulse iPad app, creating it for the class, which requires students to develop and put out a product.

Both are at Stanford’s Institute of Design and created a company called Alphonso Labs.

The app was quickly approved after about four weeks of development. Since then, it has taken off strongly, downloaded 35,000 times at a $4 price tag, even rising to No. 1 in paid apps several times, as noted prominently in the lead of the Times story.

Kothari said that the pair plan to contact Apple in the morning and take steps to remove Times material from the feeds.

It is not immediately clear why they need to, since Pulse draws from publicly available Times RSS feeds, as do many other apps, and does no scraping.

In fact, Pulse is little more than a really well-designed RSS reader, which is what the Times said it was in its write-up. You add feeds to it and it visualizes them in a way that’s easy to get through.

The Times story did have one ominous-in-retrospect note about Pulse: “It also lets people easily share articles through Twitter and Facebook–bypassing the individual sharing tools presented by each news site.”

But Pulse is pretty basic and is similar to many others readers.

In the New York Times case, as with others, one view is plain text and only shows whatever the Times puts in its RSS feed, which isn’t much. And its Web view seems to be just an in-app browser that takes you straight to the page that is in the link with the RSS feed.

You can see both here below:

The Times lawyer, Richard Samson, sees it differently, apparently, since it is a paid app rather than a free one, noting in the Times June 3 notice to Apple, which came two days after the newspaper’s article about Pulse:

“The Pulse News Reader app, makes commercial use of the NYTimes.com and Boston.com RSS feeds, in violation of their Terms of Use*. Thus, the use of our content is unlicensed. The app also frames the NYTimes.com and Boston.com websites in violation of their respective Terms of Use.”

Samson also complained about how Pulse was marketed in the App Store, a screenshot of which you can see below:

BoomTown sent an email to Samson, as well as to Apple, for comment.

Until I hear back, here is the email from the App store to Pulse, including the letter from the Times lawyer–I removed personal email addresses and phone numbers, along with the number of the Pulse case Apple gave it–as well as a lovely video of Pulse in action:

From: App Store Notices
Date: Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 3:09 PM
Subject: Apple Inc. (our ref# APPXXXX)
To: Akshay Kothari

Dear Sir or Madam,

**Please include APPXXXX in the subject line of any future correspondence on this matter.**

We received a written notice from The New York Times Company that The New York Times Company believes your application named “Pulse News Reader” infringes The New York Times Company’s rights. A copy of the notice is attached.

Accordingly, we have pulled your application from the App Store. Please contact The New York Times Company directly regarding any questions or concerns you may have.

For any technical questions, please contact iTunes Connect: www.apple.com/itunes/go/itunesconnect/contactus.

Thank you for your immediate attention.

Sincerely,

? iTunes Music Marketing & IP Legal | Apple | 1 Infinite Loop | Cupertino | CA | 95014 | AppStoreNotices@apple.com

Begin forwarded message:

From: “Samson, Richard S”
Date: June 3, 2010 10:51:23 AM PDT
To:”‘appstorenotices@apple.com’”
Cc: “Samuels, Robert”, “Manning, Michael”
Subject: infringing “Pulse News Reader” iPad app

Hello-

I am writing again, on behalf of The Boston Globe, Boston.com and The New York Times Company, about the infringing iPad app, “Pulse News Reader” produced by Alphonso Labs Inc. (please see pertinent details, link and screenshots below).

The infringing app is available on the iTunes store here: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/pulse-news-reader/id371088673?mt=8

The Pulse News Reader app, makes commercial use of the NYTimes.com and Boston.com RSS feeds, in violation of their Terms of Use*. Thus, the use of our content is unlicensed. The app also frames the NYTimes.com and Boston.com websites in violation of their respective Terms of Use.

I note that the app is delivered with the NYTimes.com RSS feed preloaded, which is prominently featured in the screen shots used to sell the app on iTunes.

I hereby declare, under penalty of perjury, that the information contained in this notification is accurate to the best of our knowledge and that I am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the copyrights and trademarks of The Boston Globe, Boston.com and The New York Times Company. We hereby demand that you immediately and permanently remove this app from the iTunes site.

Please let me know if you need any further information or have any questions. I can be reached directly at this Email or at the phone number below.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Richard Samson

Richard Samson
Senior Counsel
The New York Times Company
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, New York 10018

* NYTimes.com Terms of Service, paragraph 2.2: “The Service and its Contents are protected by copyright pursuant to U.S. and international copyright laws. You may not modify, publish, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, reproduce (except as provided in Section 2.3 of these Terms of Service), create new works from, distribute, perform, display, or in any way exploit, any of the Content or the Service (including software) in whole or in part.”

* Boston.com Terms of Service, paragraph 2.2: “The Service and its Contents are protected by copyright pursuant to U.S.and international copyright laws. You may not modify, publish, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, reproduce (except as provided in Section 2.3 of this Agreement), create new works from, distribute, perform, display, or in any way exploit, any of the Content or the Service (including software) in whole or in part.”

[All Things Digital intern Drake Martinet contributed to this report.]

Let’s see if the paper’s executives can turn that around during their earnings call. We’ll also be looking for any updates the Times can provide on its pay wall plans, and, of course, its role in the launch of the Apple iPad.

UPDATE: As I noted below, though the New York Times (NYT) was a featured partner at the launch of Apple’s (AAPL) iPad, even sending a small team to Cupertino to create an app a few weeks before the event, there was zero discussion about iPads today.

CEO Janet Robinson made a generalized comment about the growth of the Times’s mobile distribution, but that was it. And not a single analyst showed any interest in this stuff–a good reminder that neither the Times nor Wall Street expects the iPad to be material to the company’s business for quite some time.

Liveblog

On the call: CEO Janet Robinson, CFO Jim Follo, Times Media Group boss Scott Heekin-Canedy, and Digital boss Martin Nisenholtz

In a preamble, CEO Robinson highlights cost-cutting, balance sheet repair, and asset sales (radio station, but not the Boston Globe; the company is still looking at selling its stake in the Boston Red Sox–the process is “complicated” and is “taking longer than anticipated”).

Robinson recaps the pay wall plan, metered approach, etc. Nothing new here so far.

The paper is waiting until 2011 to deploy the pay wall, she explains, because it wants to make “subscribing as smooth and easy as possible….It will take some time to build, deploy and test the best systems.”

Robinson offers a few revenue details, primarily a recap of the earnings release.

Ads by category: National ads down 12 percent, retail down 23 percent, classifieds down 27 percent.

News media online grew four percent, primarily from display advertising (the rest of online growth comes from About.com).

Print ad category decreases came from Hollywood, among others. Ad category increases: Print auto, health care, packaged goods.

Circulation revenue is up because of newsstand, price increases. The Times is benefiting from declines at other papers, because as local papers cut back, it is offering more info than ever. Robinson notes expansion by the paper into local news in the Chicago and San Francisco markets, adding that there are plans on going local in “several” other key markets

Time to brag about new mobile products and applications. The paper counted 75 million page views from mobile and apps in December, and the iPhone app has been downloaded three million times since launch.

Back to digital: Display ads are up, classifieds down; they improved “significantly” as Q4 progressed.

About.com is still the Times’s digital cash machine: Revenue is up 22 percent, and operating profit grew from $10 million to $18 million.

Overall, Internet businesses are up 10 percent and accounted for 15 percent of revenue for the quarter. Online advertising revenue accounted for 23 percent of ad revenue of the quarter.

“Limited” visibility for 2010, which is what’s upsetting The Street, supposedly. But the paper is still “realigning” its cost base.

CFO Jim Follo’s comments may not interest all readers except for this part: The Times is continuing to reduce headcount, he notes, which dropped by 18 percent in 2009. The company is also looking at the benefit structure for both employees and retirees. It froze that awesome supplemental retirement plan that pays certain retirees a very lucrative pension.

We’ve been benefiting from a drop in newsprint prices last couple years, Follo notes, though suppliers are trying to raise prices again, but there’s a supply glut, so we think they’ll have a tough time doing that.

No big capital spending projects are planned. [Presumably, the pay wall is not that expensive to build.]

[Aside: Interesting that NYT.com GM Denise Warren, who's normally on these calls, isn't on today's.]

Questions and Answers

Question: More color on advertising, please.

Scott Heekin-Canedy: We have some optimism, but advertisers are “guarded,” and ads are still bought–or retracted–at the last minute, as they were last year.

Tech, media, health care, and auto ad categories all look promising. The mix is “definitely different” from last year “when it seemed like every single category was down.” Now, many categories are showing “flat to significant growth.”

Question: Are you still optimistic that you can reach a deal on the Red Sox?

Robinson: “Yes we are.” Lots of due diligence, lots of different properties (stake in team, stadium, network, etc.).

Q: What are incremental costs of setting up a pay wall?

Robinson: “We feel this is an elegant solution,” but we want to wait the year and make sure we’re well prepared, etc. Again, integrating home delivery and digital is crucial.

Nisenholtz: Regarding cost, there will be a “modest operating cost” to deploy the tech. We’re hiring a “handful” of people to do that and deploying “modest” capital, but it’s not material.

[Apology: I missed a question on ad categories, though it seems to reprise the earlier question.]

Q: Can you give us a sense of additional cost-savings you can extract this year?

Follo: Nope.

Q: Will your headcount go down again in 2010?

Follo: Yes.

[Missed another question here.]

Next a question about the tax rate, which I can’t imagine anyone reading this cares about.

Q: Can you tell us more about January ad trends, i.e., how much is national vs. local?

Robinson: We won’t break that out (anymore).

Q: Was it materially better than Q4?

Robinson: She repeats her earlier comments from the release. “Very good performance” on the digital side of business. December was particularly good, but we’re not going to be more specific about January.

Heekin-Canedy: That said, we don’t think January is much of an indicator about the rest of the year, anyway. Different beast, not much connection between December [when people were dumping leftover dollars].

[There's a giant disconnect between analysts and the chattering classes here. If the latter ran the call, this would be about nothing but iPad, iPad, iPad. But we're 48 minutes in, and zilch so far. Which is a good reminder: No matter what launches with the tablet this year, this stuff isn't going to have a big impact on Big Media for quite some time.]

Q: Where is growth coming from at About.com?

Robinson: Both consumer packaged goods and display ads. We’ve upgraded the sales channel to go after display and that’s helped a lot.

Nisenholtz: Strong categories include CPC, travel, education and financial services. There’s also retail strength.

Q: Are CPGs new to About.com?

Nisenholtz: Yeah. Well, not exactly. It’s a big site, lots of reach. But we’ve updgraded the sales team and the increase there is part of the payoff. We reach a lot of moms. The Web site skews female.

Q: You may end up paying $60 million to $80 million back into the pension plan. When could that come? Q4?

Follo: Could be sooner than that. We’re in a good position regarding liquidity.

[The final question is about joint ventures that you don't care about.]

And that’s it for the call.

That’s part of the pitch that Evercore Partners has been making to investors on behalf of McGraw-Hill (MHP), which wants to dump BusinessWeek.

The New York Times’s Stephanie Clifford gott her hands on the offering memo Evercore has been circulating to potential bidders, who are supposed to submit offers by today. Reportedly in the mix: Bloomberg; ZelnickMedia; New York Magazine owner Bruce Wasserstein; OpenGate Capital, which bought TV Guide last year for $1 plus debt; and Platinum Equity, which is bidding for the New York Times’s (NYT) Boston Globe.

In a story published yesterday, Clifford reviewed the magazine’s financials, which are miserable. Ditto for the magazine’s Web site. Today she points out Evercore’s plan to entice buyers: A ready-made layoff plan that would lop off 20 percent of the magazine’s staff.

The Evercore memo says the layoffs are actually “in process,” an assertion that seems to surprise BusinessWeek’s staff, which has seen no sign of layoffs. So best to interpret these numbers as suggestions, not plans. That said, here are Evercore’s suggestions:

In editorial, 55 of 217 positions are supposed to be eliminated. Of sales, 9 of 69. Of marketing, 6 of 26. Of technology, 8 of 33. Of circulation, just one of 19. And in the “other” category, 6 of 57. That’s a total of 85 eliminations among 421 jobs – about 20 percent – leaving 336 BusinessWeek employees.

“BusinessWeek will establish a leaner, entrepreneurial staff without affecting the brand, positioning of the franchise or revenue outlook. The eliminations of editorial staff are primarily in editorial support operations (makeup and copy desk), but also include a reduction in the number of journalists to reflect the smaller folio size of the publication. The positions eliminated in sales are primarily for sales support, but also include some consolidation of integrated sales account managers. The remaining positions eliminated are in other business support functions.”

A logical question: If these cuts are so easy to make, why hasn’t McGraw-Hill made them? I know that this strategy isn’t uncommon in auctions: Many moons ago, Time Warner (TWX) held off making cuts at its music unit so that a new buyer could do it itself, and that’s exactly what Edgar Bronfman Jr. and crew did once they got their hands on Warner Music Group (WMG). But the practice still baffles me. Anyone?

That’s the message Chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and Chief Executive Janet L. Robinson tried to deliver to the Globe’s employees this morning, reports…the Boston Globe.

Given that the Times engaged in some white-knuckled negotiating to get the paper’s unions to agree to big pay cuts and other concessions, repeatedly said that the Globe is bleeding red ink and has extended the bidding deadline for prospective Globe buyers, that seems like a hard message to deliver. Especially if you’re delivering it to crabby, ink-stained wretches.

The Globe, however, says the meeting was “largely civil.” But not entirely:

Today’s meeting, which lasted just over an hour, marked the first time Times Co. executives have met with Globe employees in more than a year. A common complaint among Globe employees was that the most senior Times Co. executives did not travel to Boston for a face-to-face meeting with employees at which they might have explained the paper’s financial condition and made the case for sacrifices.

The meeting today was contentious at times, as classified sales employee Jeanne Shimkus drew a smattering of applause when she attacked the Times Co. executives for imposing cuts on employees and questioned their credibility. “I have no respect for anything you say. And I don’t believe a word you say,” Shimkus said.

Sulzberger quickly moved on to the next question. “If you have no respect for anything I say, and you don’t believe anything I say, then we don’t have the basis for a conversation and a dialogue,” he told her.

That projection comes from a survey of Web users that Internet analyst Imran Khan commissioned last month. Khan’s survey found that 37 percent of respondents were familiar with the Kindle. And of that group, five percent said they already owned one of the devices, and another 15 percent said they expect to buy one within the next year. Extrapolating those results for the U.S. population, Khan figures that Kindle ownership will hit 10 million in the next 12 months. (Click chart to enlarge)

OK. But what if Amazon (AMZN) dropped its proprietary ebook format, a supposed weakness that competitors Sony (SNE) and Plastic Logic are trying to take advantage of by agreeing to use an open, common standard? Won’t matter that much, say Khan’s respondents: Only 15 percent of people who say they don’t plan to buy a Kindle cite format issues as a concern. I’m surprised the number is that high.

On a related note: Whatever happened to Amazon’s plan to work with the New York Times (NYT) and the Washington Post (WPO) to bundle newspaper subscriptions with its jumbo-sized Kindle DX reader?

When Amazon unveiled the DX in May, it briefly mentioned plans to sell the $489 machine at a discount to people who bought subscriptions to the Times, Post or Boston Globe, but didn’t say much more than that. Details were supposed to be released “this summer.”

Now we’re midway through August and we haven’t heard a peep about the program. What gives? I asked Amazon, the Times and the Post, and none of them had anything to say–save for a comment from a Post rep who said that the subscription-plus-discount offer would be “a small experiment.”

Anyway, now it’s not. The cash-strapped publisher has sold WQXR-FM for $45 million, carving up the asset into two packages for different buyers–local NPR affiliate WNYC and Spanish-language broadcaster Univision Radio, a unit of Univision Communications.

The money will be used to chip away at the paper’s $1 billion debt (the terms of the $250 million loan it took out from billionaire Carlos Slim pretty much require that the paper do that whenever it sells off anything significant). It’s not much, but it may end being more than the paper gets for the Boston Globe, which it bought for $1.1 billion in 1993.

The Times has owned the station since 1944; it sold off its AM sibling to Disney (DIS) in 2006.

The deal involves a swap of licenses and equipment between multiple stations, but that won’t be of interest to you unless you listen to classical music or Spanish-language programming on New York City radio stations. If you do, the details are in the release.

Goldman Sachs (GS), which is running the auction for the Times, had originally told bidders to submit their offers by July 8. But as of last night, that deadline has been pushed back, with no new deadline to replace it, reports…the Boston Globe.

The Globe doesn’t know what the extension means, but it does have a concise roundup of potential bidders:

Three local businessmen have surfaced as potential Globe bidders: Stephen Pagliuca, co-owner of the Boston Celtics and managing director at the Bain Capital private equity firm; Jack Connors, a former advertising executive and chairman of Partners HealthCare; and Stephen Taylor, a former Globe executive and member of the family that sold the newspaper to the Times Co. for $1.1 billion in 1993. Connors and Pagliuca, who initially were considering separate bids, requested and were given permission by Goldman Sachs to join forces and submit a common bid.

The other big question. How much will the winner end up paying for the paper? A lot less than what the Times paid for it 16 years ago, obviously.

The Times has already told bidders that they should expect to assume $59 million in pension liabilities if they walk away with the paper, but beyond that, it’s anyone guess. The paper’s own David Carr went through this exercise last month and elicited guesstimates that ranged from $1 to $250 million.

Looks like he was right.

LogMeIn became the fourth venture-backed IPO of 2009 this morning, hitting the markets with an offering that raised $107 million for the remote-services technology provider. Priced at $16 each, the high end of the stock’s IPO price range, LogMeIn (LOGM) shares spiked more than 30 percent to $20.90 shortly after the company made its public debut.

Great news for LogMeIn, which filed to go public in January 2008, only to see its prospects for doing so trashed by the econalypse. Great news as well for venture-backed companies hoping to go public. “The IPO window has cracked open a bit,’’ Emily Mendell, vice president of strategic affairs for the National Venture Capital Association told the Boston Globe. “I think the market has become slightly more stable.’’

It would certainly appear that way. Shares of SolarWinds (SWI), a network-management software outfit, are up 24 percent since their debut, and online restaurant-reservation service OpenTable’s (OPEN) shares have soared 52 percent since they began trading in May.

Clearly, we’re seeing something of an awakening in the moribund IPO market, although whether it will continue is anyone’s guess. “I think this is a temporary market window,” David Liu, a managing director at Jefferies & Co., told Forbes. “The economy is still screwed up….We’re telling our clients, if you can get on file and do something quickly, go ahead and do it now so you’re not caught flat-footed.”

Good news, Boston Globe fans: Your paper is going to remain extant. Probably.

Bad news, Boston Globe editorial workers: You’re getting a 23 percent pay cut.

That’s the fallout after the Globe’s Newspaper Guild rejected management’s previous offer, which would have involved an 8.4 percent pay cut, which was made at the behest of the New York Times (NYT), which owns the Globe.

The Times had previously said that it needed to cut the Globe’s costs by $20 million or it would fold the paper, because it was on track to lose $85 million this year. The new cuts, announced today, will get the paper to its cost-cutting goal, so everything’s cool. For now.

Here’s Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis’ statement, via…the Boston Globe:

“Because we have achieved the $20 million in savings we needed, we do not foresee closure at this time and are focused on executing the Globe’s turnaround plan.”

Remember a month ago, when the New York Times (NYT) said it had reached an agreement with a holdout union at the Boston Globe, which would prevent a shutdown of the Times-owned paper?

Scratch that. Deal’s off.

The Newspaper Guild, which represents some 600 editorial employees at the Globe, narrowly rejected the agreement tonight, forcing the ball back into the Times’ court. The Times had said it would need to shutter the Globe if it couldn’t extract $20 million in savings from the Globe’s unions. And, the Guild was supposed to provide $10 million of that via the proposed deal, which included an 8.4 percent pay cut. The Globe’s management had previously said it would cut pay 23 percent if the union rejected the deal.

The Times, which paid $1.1 billion for the Globe in 1993 (a year before the Netscape Mosaic Web browser launched) has argued that it needs to hack out big savings from the paper because it’s on track to lost $85 million this year.

But this interesting take by Poynter Media analyst Rick Edmonds argues that that figure overstates the case, since that total includes one-time charges, and paper losses for depreciation, etc.

Statement from Globe management:

We are disappointed that in a close vote of 277 to 265 the Boston Newspaper Guild did not ratify the Globe’s final proposal. As we have stated, the $10 million in cost savings from this multifaceted proposal is essential to The Boston Globe’s financial future.

This evening we have sent a letter to the Guild stating that as a result of the rejection of this proposal, we have reverted to our alternative Final Record Proposal which provides for a 23% wage reduction for all Guild members.  This will secure the $10 million in costs savings needed from the Guild and will allow the Globe to reach the targeted $20 million in savings needed from all our major unions.

Since the parties are at an impasse, the Globe will implement the wage reduction effective next week.  We have told the Guild that we are available to meet any day this week to review implementation of the pay cut.

We regret having to take this action, but have no financially viable alternative.

The Palm (PALM) Pre officially went on sale this morning, and judging from initial reports–and my experience at a local Northern California Sprint store–neither demand or supply was particularly overwhelming. Certainly, lines for the device were far shorter than those that extended from Apple (AAPL) stores for the launches of the iPhone and the iPhone 3G.

Arriving outside my local Sprint (S) store about an hour after they first opened, I found not a queue of eager Pre-buyers, but two kids making forts out of a few Pre shipping boxes left outside the store. Inside the store, I found a group of nine people waiting in line to add their names to a waiting list for the device, which was already sold out at this location. A Sprint rep refused to tell me how many Pres had been sold this morning, but admitted that the shipment had been a small one.

The situation is apparently the same across the country. The Boston Globe reports that Sprint’s Back Bay store sold out of its 55 Pres by 11 AM. An informal survey by 24/7 Wall Street reveals sell outs or fast-dwindling supplies of the device at Sprint and Best Buy stores in Chicago, Houston, San Francisco and Los Angeles. Four of the five Best Buy stores I contacted reported selling out of the Pre very quickly; one representative told me his store had just four of the devices and he believed that to be the case at many other locations.

Sprint stores I spoke with in LA, Chicago and Boston told me they’d sold out by late morning.

Q: How many names on the list? A: “We’re not allowed to say.” A reader tells me that the line outside the W. Division Street in Chicago was at least 50 people long, and that the store started wait-listing people somewhere around #36. Another reader reports a line of about 20 people outside an Emeryville, CA Sprint store. That same reader claims a clerk told him the store had 60 Pres on hand. Still another reader reports that the line outside Sprint’s Market Street store in San Francisco started at 6 AM this morning. There were a dozen or so folks in line by about 7:30 AM. Finally, another reader reports that a Sprint store in San Francisco’s Castro district had a line of about 40 people when she showed up to get in line at 7 AM. That location, too, sold out quickly.

Four phones at the local Best Buy? Stores in Marin, LA and Chicago sold out within hours? Makes you wonder if Palm and Sprint are purposely constraining supply to foster an image of overwhelming demand.

Why do I care?

• Because his hire is yet another indicator that AOL is continuing to hire experienced writers and reporters–often from ailing publications–to build up its own sites, a strategy championed by content czar Bill Wilson’s MediaGlow. AOL has been steadily hiring journalism vets and using them to reinvigorate existing sites like its FanHouse sports hub and to launch new ones like PoliticsDaily. Other recent hires include Mitch Lipka, a consumer finance writer for the Boston Globe who will join AOL’s Walletpop, and David Wood, a longtime national security writer for the Baltimore Sun,  who is joining PoliticsDaily.
• Because it means that the not-going-to-shut-down-after-all Portoflio.com won’t feature its two marquee bloggers. Felix Salmon, Bercovici’s former colleague at the Condé Nast site, had already left for Reuters to start a finance blog earlier this year.
• Because Bercovici is damned good at the media beat, so I’m going to need to bookmark his page and add his RSS feed into my reader.
• And because I’ve been writing about layoffs since I started this column in October, and this is a nice change of pace.

Here’s why: The yet-to-be-described subsidy the papers plan to offer to Kindle DX buyers who agree to long-term subscriptions will only be available to a fraction of subscribers–those who can’t get home delivery of the print edition.

From Amazon’s press release: “The New York Times Company (NYT) and Washington Post Company (WPO) are launching pilots with Kindle DX this summer. The New York Times, The Boston Globe, and The Washington Post will offer the Kindle DX at a reduced price to readers who live in areas where home-delivery is not available and who sign up for a long-term subscription to the Kindle edition of the newspapers.”

Since the New York Times is available for home delivery throughout most of the U.S., that means that the majority of its American readers will have to pay full freight–$489–for the gadget. I suppose you could circumvent this if you lived, in say, Minneapolis, by agreeing to subscribe to the Boston Globe instead, which you can’t get delivered at home there. But what’s the point?

My assumption here is that the terms were set by the Times and the Post, which presumably don’t want to cut into print circulation. This makes sense if you’re focused on the very, very short term, since the print editions–both via subscriptions and the ads they contain–still deliver the majority of newspaper revenue for both companies.

Then again, that business isn’t going gangbusters for any of the papers involved. The Times, for instance, spent the early morning hours today hammering out a labor deal that will allow it keep the Globe in business.

The easy way to improve the offer: Copy my corporate colleagues at the Wall Street Journal, and offer a bundle online/offline subscription. But once you start doing that, you get into interesting billing issues, which is going to be fodder for another post.

Who knows? Maybe they’ll try it. Since everyone involved is careful to point out that this is an “experiment,” etc., it’s possible that the papers could reconsider the offer sooner than later. Which I hope they do: It’s a nice-looking device, and it would be a shame if no one ever used it.

The New York Times Co., which owns the Globe, has reached an agreement with the Boston Newspaper Guild. The Guild, which represents 600 editorial employees at the paper, was the one union at the Globe that had yet to agree to concessions the Times said it needed to avoid a shutdown.

The Globe reports that the deal, reached overnight, includes “a substantial pay cut, unpaid furloughs, and modifications to the lifetime job guarantee provisions that protect almost 200 employees.”

On Tuesday night, the New York Times Co. (NYT) had presented a “last best offer” to cut wages by 23 percent in order to save $10 million a year at the Globe, which it says was on track to lose $85 million this year. The union had countered with what was essentially a five percent cut.

Related news: Discount retailer, Filene’s Basement, once a mainstay Globe advertiser, filed for Chapter 11 this week.

[Image credit: Tony the Misfit]

One exception: The Globe’s unionized editorial employees, who have yet to come to terms with the paper’s owner. The Times makes ominous sounds about what might happen–“evaluating our alternatives”–but nothing specific.

Last night, the Times said it was ready to file a so-called WARN Act announcing that it would shutter the Globe in 60 days unless it got the concessions it was looking for. At the outset of negotiations with the unions, the New York Times Co. (NYT) said it needed $20 million worth of cuts to keep the paper afloat; it claims the Globe, which it purchased for $1.1 billion in 1993, is on track to lost $85 million this year.

Here’s the release:

We are very pleased to have reached agreements with six of the seven unions that were involved in recent negotiations. This includes agreements with the drivers, mailers, pressmen, the electricians, machinists, and technical services group. As a result of these agreements, which are subject to ratification by union members, we expect to achieve both the workplace flexibility and the financial savings that we sought from these unions. We are not, therefore, making a filing today under the Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. We appreciate the productive and cooperative approach demonstrated by the leadership of these unions throughout these difficult negotiations.

We are disappointed, however, that we have not yet been able to reach an agreement with the Guild. Because of that, we are evaluating our alternatives under both the Guild contract and applicable law to achieve as quickly as possible the workplace flexibility and remaining cost savings we need to help put The Globe on a sound financial footing.

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.

There’s lots of experimentation with different approaches. Many journalists, old and new, are operating as stand-alone bloggers, but finding it hard to make a living. Web advertising has weakened with the economy, and often can’t cover the costs of expensive reporting. A couple of respected traditional publications have successfully attracted large numbers of paid subscribers online, but many others who have tried have failed.

Meanwhile, advertisers also are scrambling to figure out the best way to sell their products online, in a manner that both attracts potential customers and blends in well with the content and style of news sites. And publishers are trying to capture the conversation and sense of community that permeate services like Facebook and Twitter.

This week, a new Web news site is entering the fray, with a novel approach to journalistic entrepreneurship, new forms of advertising, and an effort to blend journalism and social networking.

The site, called True/Slant, at trueslant.com, is opening its doors via an odd preliminary status it calls an “open alpha.” This means it’s rough around the edges, and not yet taking in revenue, but hopes to attract enough participation to hone its design and operation.

True/Slant is run by a former news executive at America Online who worked at a variety of publications, including The Wall Street Journal. It covers a wide range of topics, such as politics, culture, sports, business, health, science and food.

It is launching with 65 journalists, or “knowledge experts,” assigned to specific topics. Each of these contributors gets a page to house their journalism and, it is hoped, an active social network of followers who will regularly discuss the articles they read there. Each page also will feature headlines of stories elsewhere on the Web selected by the contributors. These “headline grabs” link back to the originating outside site.

The initial group of contributors includes current or former writers for publications such as the Financial Times, Rolling Stone, the New York Times, Time magazine and the Boston Globe.

Readers can go directly to the page of their favorite contributor, but the site’s home page will knit together popular content and contributors, and each reader will be able to track multiple topics and contributors through a streaming feed called “I’m following.”

True/Slant will run regular Web ads throughout. But, in a highly unusual move, the site plans to offer advertisers their own entire pages where they can run blogs and try to attract a network of followers. These will have the same design and features of the journalists’ pages, but will be labeled as ad content.

The journalists are paid a small amount, but the plan is to turn them into minipublishers under the True/Slant umbrella. They will be offered a share of the advertising and sponsorship revenues their individual pages generate and, in some cases, equity in True/Slant, which is backed by venture capital.

These contributors are allowed to keep writing elsewhere, either online or in traditional media, and even to promote these outside efforts on True/Slant. But they are expected to post original commentary and analysis to True/Slant. They also are allowed to arrange for their own advertising or sponsorships, in addition to what True/Slant can sell, and even, in some cases, to add other authors to their pages.

In another unusual move, the contributors also are required to actively engage with readers on the site. They must post a minimum number of comments in reader discussions about their articles and curate the comments, giving prominence to the most interesting. They are even expected to comment on each other’s posts.

This required engagement is an attempt to capture some of the excitement of a social network, and it ties in directly with a contributor’s success. On the home page, and elsewhere throughout the site, True/Slant promotes not only the most popular contributors, but also the most active ones. High rankings in these categories can lead to higher traffic on each contributor’s page, and, indirectly, to higher income.

Readers who are active commenters can also gain prominence on the site, especially if those comments are popular or called out for special attention. A front-page panel will highlight the most active commenters, and the most called-out comments.

The layout of the site is clean and handsome, a decent effort to meld a news site and a social network. One layout flaw the company hopes to fix: There’s no easy way to find a list of all topics, only those it considers hot at any moment.

It’s way too early to know if True/Slant will succeed. For one thing, it is still dependent on advertising, not subscriptions. And ethical questions could arise, because the site’s operators don’t edit or preapprove the content, and the model of blended journalism and advertising could prove problematic.

But it’s another example of how the Web is changing traditional media, and might be worth a look.

Find all of Walt Mossberg’s columns and videos online, free, at the All Things Digital Web site, walt.allthingsd.com. Email him at mossberg@wsj.com.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090408/trueslant-tests-another-model-of-web-journalism/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20090326/new-york-times-cuts-salaries-jobs/ http://allthingsd.com/20090326/new-york-times-cuts-salaries-jobs/#comments Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:19:37 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=5675

Last year, New York Times (NYT) executive editor Bill Keller told the newspaper’s newsroom that he would try very hard to not fire any of them, despite the paper’s worsening financial health. But he didn’t say anything about pay cuts.

The Times today announced that it would be cutting salaries of its nonunion employees from 2.5 percent to 5 percent and that it would be asking for “similar” cuts from its unionized newsroom employees “in a spirit of shared sacrifice and as a way to otherwise avoid layoffs in the newsroom.”

Translation: Cut your salaries or we’ll cut your jobs.

In addition, the Times has canned 100 people from the paper’s business operations. The sweetener: Those who get their salaries slashed also get extra vacation days.

The Times hasn’t officially unveiled its request/demand for givebacks from its unionized newsroom, but plans to do so this afternoon.

Here’s the internal memo:

Dear Colleagues,

As you know, the global economic crisis is taking its toll on a broad range of businesses and sectors, here in the U.S. and around the world. We have reported in our own newspapers and on our own Web sites that the economy is likely to continue struggling throughout this year and possibly longer.

Given this economic outlook and the changes occurring in the media business, we, regrettably, must take even more steps to lower costs. We have been, and continue to, reorganize and reduce our staff, which means we are saying goodbye to many of our close colleagues. Now, in addition, we are lowering salaries through the end of this year for all remaining nonunion employees and, in exchange, providing additional time off. We plan to approach the Newspaper Guild in New York to ask for its participation in the program and to continue working with our unions in Boston and our other locations on lowering our costs, including wage reductions.

The salaries of all employees at The New York Times Media Group (with the exception of the IHT, which is working on other cost reduction measures), The Boston Globe, Boston.com and Corporate in New York will be rolled back by 5%, starting this April, and these employees will receive 10 additional days off to use before the end of the year.

At the About Group, Baseline, Globe Direct, International Media Concepts, Regional Media Group, Shared Services Center and Worcester Telegram & Gazette, the approach is similar, with salaries being rolled back by 2.5% with five additional days off. We made the distinction between the two groups by taking into account location and other factors. Next year, we plan to return salaries to their current levels. Of course, such a decision depends on the state of our business.

Many of you will have questions about these actions. Your manager or department head has been briefed with more details and is your best source of information.

This was a very difficult decision to make. The environment we are in is the toughest we have seen in our years in business. Across our Company, you and your colleagues have worked hard to introduce innovative products and services, reduce expenses and improve productivity. We are deeply grateful for your efforts and proud of your achievements. As we take these painful steps together, we remain confident that our great Company will keep moving forward to better times.

Sincerely,

Arthur & Janet

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090326/new-york-times-cuts-salaries-jobs/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20081230/h-p-printers-big-in-iran/ http://allthingsd.com/20081230/h-p-printers-big-in-iran/#comments Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:27:44 +0000 Justin Scheck http://voices.allthingsd.com/?p=7205 There’s lots of talk in the tech industry these days about capitalizing on growth in “emerging markets,” countries like China, Vietnam and Brazil where people are rapidly buying computers and printers.

A story in Monday’s Boston Globe says Hewlett-Packard Co. is taking that strategy one step further: Its printers, writes Farah Stockman, “have become a top seller” in Iran–a country whose economy the U.S. government wants to prevent from emerging.

Since 1995, the U.S. government has had an on embargo on trade between U.S. companies and Iran due to the Iranian government’s “sponsorship of international terrorism and Iran’s active pursuit of weapons of mass destruction,” according to a U.S. Treasury Department fact sheet.

Read the rest of this post

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20081230/h-p-printers-big-in-iran/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20081229/supposed-buyer-for-nyts-boston-red-sox-stake-says-hes-not-interested/ http://allthingsd.com/20081229/supposed-buyer-for-nyts-boston-red-sox-stake-says-hes-not-interested/#comments Tue, 30 Dec 2008 02:04:22 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=2558

One of the supposed buyers for the New York Times’s (NYT) stake in the Boston Red Sox–one of the few assets the paper can unload as it tries to bail itself out of a cash crunch and looming debt problem–says he’s not buying. Here’s the report from the Boston Globe (which the Times owns):

Both Boston Herald publisher Patrick Purcell and former Boston advertising executive Jack Connors separately flatly ruled out being involved in deals to buy the Boston Globe, which is owned by the New York Times Co. Connors further said he had no interest in buying the Times Co.’s stake in the Boston Red Sox.

The Times has put its 17.5 percent stake in the Red Sox up for sale, and recent news accounts have reported that the company has also offered to sell the Globe, too. The Financial Times reported last week that Connors was in talks with Times executives to buy the Globe and the Red Sox position.

‘There’s nothing to it,’ Connors told the Globe. ‘I’m not buying the Boston Globe. I’m not buying anything that the New York Times owns.’”

As denials go, that’s a fairly strong one. And while that doesn’t mean the Times can’t find someone else to buy its stake in the baseball team–it was reportedly seeking up to $300 million, while other estimates peg the value in the $170 million range–the market didn’t react well to the news. Shares in the Times’ beaten-down stock dropped more than seven percent in after-market trading.

The fate of the Boston Globe, sadly, doesn’t mean much for the Times in terms of solving its financial mess: A few years ago, former GE CEO Jack Welch was reportedly interested in spending up to $600 million for the paper; today it might fetch $50 million or so.

Late today the Times also announced that it had filed a shelf registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission–essentially a placeholder document that allows the company to move quickly with a debt or equity offering if it decides to pull the trigger. Spokesperson Catherine Mathis:

In these difficult markets, the Company wants to ensure that it has maximum flexibility and, accordingly, is filing a shelf that would permit it to offer both debt and equity.

But convincing investors to buy anything is only getting harder for the paper, given the miserable sales numbers it has been reporting: Even before the after-market drop, the stock was worth 60 percent less than it was a year ago.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20081229/supposed-buyer-for-nyts-boston-red-sox-stake-says-hes-not-interested/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20081208/cash-strapped-times-wants-to-borrow-against-its-hq-anyone-want-to-lend-it-225-million/ http://allthingsd.com/20081208/cash-strapped-times-wants-to-borrow-against-its-hq-anyone-want-to-lend-it-225-million/#comments Mon, 08 Dec 2008 10:00:53 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=1786 The New York Times is running low on cash but has a $400 million debt payment due next spring. How to foot the bill? Raise money anywhere it can.

Last month, the Times cut its dividend, a move that could save it up to $100 million a year. Now the paper is looking to borrow against its new Manhattan headquarters. It has hired a real estate firm to raise up to $225 million using the value of the building as collateral. The company is looking at either a sale-leaseback or a mortgage, reports…the New York Times (NYT).

The Times doesn’t actually own the entire structure–it owns 58 percent, and Bruce Ratner’s Forest City Ratner owns the remainder–but the value of the Times’s share has been previously estimated in the $850 million to $1 billion range. It’s not clear whether the Times now thinks the building is worth much, much less than it did a year ago, or if it’s not looking to borrow against the total value of its property. UPDATE: From the NYT’s Catherine Mathis: “We may borrow up to $225 million. That’s not the market value of the building.”

Executive Editor Bill Keller has told the staff that he’ll try very hard not to fire anyone else at paper. We hope this works out, though other people we know have concluded that the paper must make significant cuts. Other less, painful steps the paper can make to save or raise money: Sell either the Boston Globe and/or its stake in the Boston Red Sox.

But what the Times really needs is for advertisers to start spending more money on digital advertising as they cut back on print ads. And that, sadly, isn’t something the paper can control.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20081208/cash-strapped-times-wants-to-borrow-against-its-hq-anyone-want-to-lend-it-225-million/feed/ 0