The New York Times's Management Failures

The New York Times's Management Failures

When it comes to news, The New York Times Company (NYT) does more than just report; it creates it. Shareholders abstained in the amount of 28% yesterday during voting for the four directors elected by holders of common stock. Class B shareholders elect nine additional board members, giving them de facto veto power despite owning less than one percent of the company's stock.

The major newspaper publishers have generally failed to provide adequate returns to their investors. Some of these firms have gone too far with their acquisitions. The New York Times Company is an example of how expanding an empire may backfire by watering down its most valuable asset.

The business acquired The Boston Globe in 1993. The decline of print newspapers like this one is inevitable as more and more people turn to the internet for their news. Second-tier newspapers in major cities are vulnerable because they aim to please everyone.

To succeed, a newspaper just needs to be the best at what it does. This specialization may be geographical or thematic. There is still no serious threat to community newspapers, so they can flourish. Everything they say is completely original. A relatively limited number of people place a high value on it.

It's likely that a business that owns multiple copies of these papers in affluent areas will perform well. These periodicals differentiate themselves from national media outlets by covering school and sporting events on a regional scale. They essentially control the market for both news and advertising.

Because the demographics of the neighboring town are not nearly as desirable, advertising in some parts of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania benefits from targeting specific communities. The role of public education systems is crucial here. No changes to that system are foreseeable, in my opinion. Consequently, I anticipate that these establishments will perform better than major metropolitan dailies.

The New York Times Company's most valuable possession is the name itself. There are few national brands with the same prestige as The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. Others in the media have disseminated them across the country. It's not the number of copies sold that matters. Their readerships are minuscule (the news industry is highly fragmented) when compared to the entire country.

The idea that the entire country could be a potential market for these publications was unthinkable just a few years ago. However, I don't believe that will be the case now. The online market has great potential for these studies. They'll need a plan for making money online, of course.

I'm not keen on paying a lot of money every month for an online subscription. It seems like a good plan at the moment, but it may reduce advertising income in the long run. It would be quite lucrative to become the go-to site for online news. Unfortunately, charging high prices for internet news will only get you a small share of the market.

It's not just that people are unwilling to pay. Exclusion is also a problem. The more widely used an internet news source is, the less exclusive it is. Those who don't check out your website are much less likely to bring it up in conversation. Similarly, no author intends to alienate any portion of his or her readership. As a result, many authors avoid mentioning subscription services altogether.

There are certain bloggers who mention paid membership sites. Writing about paid services makes me think the author is crazy, since I know how strongly people respond to being excluded. Site visitors will be less enthusiastic about your work if it constantly reminds them of what they are missing out on, even if that fact is never explicitly stated.

In the digital space, both The New York Times Company and Dow Jones (DJ) have opted to acquire preexisting platforms. When a company buys a company that already exists, I tend to be wary. These companies had to establish an internet presence, but each in its own unique way. In all likelihood, the acquisitions will prove to be more successful than I anticipated. The brand, though, is what I believe to be the true asset.

Is it a bargain to work at the New York Times? Almost there! If you share my optimism that this company may become a household name in American journalism, then the stock is a steal. Otherwise, the price appears to be reasonable.

Even if newspapers have taken a pounding recently, their popularity means that they were never at a level that would ensure market-beating returns, no matter how well they were managed. The same thing has occurred in other industries. It was possible to wring more money out of a failing company than the stock was worth. Not so in this instance. The stock is valued as though it were a mature, but still operational, company.

It's not worth the money if the New York Times really is a failing publication. But if the name has any genuine worth, you may get it at a discount.

Due to past experiences of funds being misallocated, I do not have faith in the company's decision-making. Many of these dubious expenditures were negligible in comparison to the worth of the core franchise. However, this does not justify the company's lack of concentration or an owner-centric culture.

The business's intrinsic economic benefits are no defense. There are highly profitable businesses that aren't making nearly as much money as they could be. For instance, Campbell Soup (CPB) has a track record of profitable capital returns, but I have yet to find any proof that this is due to astute management of the company's financial resources. At the New York Times Company, I had the same impression. The Times' management lucked out by inheriting a fantastic franchise, which may mask less-than-optimal uses of cash.

If I had faith in the management of this company and its use of capital, I would purchase shares immediately. This franchise offers substantial benefits and promising future growth. However, I'm not confident that the necessary effort will be made.

Share :