Mismanagement At The New York Times

The New York Times Company (NYT) isn't justonline news destination would prove extraordinarily
reporting the news - it's making the news. Atprofitable. Unfortunately, no one is going to capture
yesterday's annual meeting, shareholders withheldmore than a tiny sliver of the online news market by
28% of their votes for the four directors elected bycharging a lot of money for their content.
holders of the company's common stock. Nine otherIt isn't just an issue of people not wanting to pay. It's
directors are elected by holders of the Class Balso an issue of exclusivity. The less exclusive an
shares, effectively granting control of the companyonline news source is the more often it will be cited.
to a group holding less than a 1% economic interestPeople who don't visit your site are far less likely to
in the business.reference it. Just as importantly, no writer wants to
Most of the large newspaper companies have notexclude any part of his own readership. So, many
done a great job of earning the best returns for theirwriters simply won't cite a subscription service.
shareholders. Some of these companies overdidSome online writers do reference subscription
acquisitions. The New York Times Company illustratesservices. Knowing how strongly people react to being
the danger of adding to the empire - you dilute theexcluded, I think writers who cite paid services are
crown jewel.absolutely nuts. Even if it isn't consciously
In 1993, the company bought The Boston Globe.acknowledged, readers will enjoy your site less if it
Unfortunately, this is exactly the kind of paper thatpoints out something they can't have.
will be hurt by online news sources. Second-tier majorBoth The New York Times Company and Dow Jones
city dailies are not in a strong position, because they(DJ) went the route of buying an established online
try to be all things to all people.destination. I'm always skeptical of these kind of me
A newspaper can thrive by dominating a specifictoo acquisitions. These businesses did need to go
niche. That niche can be geographical or topical.online, but they needed to do it in their own way.
Community newspapers can thrive, because they stillThe acquisitions will probably work out better than I
have no real competition. The news they report isthought they would. But, I still think the real value is in
unique. It is very important to a very small group ofthe brand.
people.Is the New York Times Company cheap? It's close.
A company that owns clusters of these papers inIf you agree with me about the potential for a real
wealthy suburbs will do fine. By reporting on localnational news brand, the stock looks cheap.
schools, sports, and events these publications setOtherwise, it looks about fairly priced.
themselves apart from all other news sources. TheyNewspapers have been beaten down a lot recently,
have a mini-monopoly both on the news they providebut they were so well-loved to begin with that they
and on the ads they run.aren't at the kind of levels that guarantee market
There are places in states like New York, Newbeating returns regardless of how well they're run.
Jersey, Connecticut, and Pennsylvannia whereThat's happened in other businesses. You could
advertisers benefit from targeting specificextract more cash from a dying business than the
communities, because the demographics of the nextstock was selling for. That isn't the case here. The
town over are not nearly as attractive. A lot of thisstock is currently priced as if it were a continuing
has to do with public schools. I don't see that system(albeit mature) business.
changing anytime soon. So, I imagine these propertiesIf the New York Times is truly a dying business, it
will fare much better than big city newspapers.isn't worth the current price. But, if there is real value
The New York Times Company has one great assetin the brand, it's a bargain right now.
- its brand. The New York Times and The WallI'm not confident in the decision making at this
Street Journal each have a very valuable nationalcompany, because I've seen how capital was
brand. People all over the country have beenmisallocated in the past. Many of these questionable
exposed to them through other media outlets. Theinvestments were small relative to the value of the
value isn't really in the size of the circulation. If youcore franchise. But, that doesn't excuse the lack of
think of the entire country as their potential market,focus and the lack of a true owner oriented culture.
their circulations are tiny (the news business is veryThe favorable economics inherent to the business
fragmented).are no excuse either. There are very profitable
A few years ago, it would have been crazy to thinkcompanies out there that aren't nearly as profitable
of the entire country as a potential market for theseas they could be. For instance, Campbell Soup (CPB)
publications. But, I don't think that's the case today.consistently earns good returns on capital; but, I
These papers could earn a lot of money online. Ofhaven't seen any evidence that those returns were
course, they have to figure out how to earn moneythe result of skillful capital allocation. I think much the
online.same is true at the New York Times Company. A
Long-term, I don't like the idea of expensive onlinegreat franchise helps cover-up less than optimal uses
subscriptions. It looks like a great idea now, but itof capital - and the Times' management has
could limit future ad revenue. Becoming a dominantbenefited from inheriting a great franchise.