The New York Times' Revenue Since Hiring Paul Krugman

Tyler Durden's picture

Things at the NYT are not going quite as planned. From the FT:

A fall in advertising sales and stepped-up investment in digital products sapped second-quarter profit at the New York Times as the publisher forecast flat circulation revenue and further declines in advertising in the coming months.

 

Net income of $9.2m, or 6 cents a share, was down 54 per cent from $20.1m, or 13 cents a share, a year ago. Adjusted operating profit, which strips out some one-time items including retirement costs and depreciation, fell 21 per cent to $55.7m.

 

A trio of digital offerings – the NYT Now app, targeted at mobile users, a standalone opinion app and a higher-priced premium subscription service – helped lift circulation revenues in the quarter. But the company said subscriber growth for its website and core mobile app had flagged, and said it needed to do a better job of marketing its offerings to the right audiences.

Or another way of showing it, here are the NYT's revenues since hiring Paul Krugman as an Op-Ed columnist. Correlation or causation?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Pladizow's picture

100% Causation!

Vampyroteuthis infernalis's picture

Libtardism is the disease. Krugman is just a symptom.

whotookmyalias's picture

Causation, but in a more complex way.  Not Kruggy's fault per say, just the idea that any publication that would print his drivel lacks the type of value that anyone will want to pay for.

Headbanger's picture

Good!

Now can we put Krugman on a Malaysian Air flight over Liberia that gets blow apart by an Ebola armed missile then vaporized by a massive solar EMP  followed by a recall of the plane for a faulty ignition switch!?

Manthong's picture

They just need to go earnings negative and build large deficits to live in Krugman's dream world.

knukles's picture

All depends on whatchu think of Paul, right?
Then again, Maureen Dowd and Tom Freidman haven't been exactly intellectual pillars either, no?

Keyser's picture

The Krugmeister might have something to do with the decline of the NYT, but I have to think that people are finally waking up and realizing they have been lied to for decades by the NYT and the rest of the MSM... Just say no to their ad and subscription requests... Personally, I wouldn't let my dog take a crap on a copy of the NYT... 

 

 

TheRedScourge's picture

I think he would agree that he would be a better columnist if they would just stimulate him more.

philipat's picture

Krugman never seems to use Japan as an example of the success of the policies he expounds. I wonder why??...

Manthong's picture

" if they would just stimulate him more."

Huh?  Who.. Maureen Dowd?

passenger_pidgin's picture

I hate the New York Times' Paul.

I live in his crystal ball

where everything rises

(especially the prices)

And only my earnings can fall.

oklaboy's picture

If Robert Redford stood outside the NYT today like he did in 3 Day of the Condor, Cliff Roberston could cap his ass and nobody would notice, that is how irrelenvant NYT and Klugface is.

ugmug's picture

A little, I mean a lot, of weed in the newsroom will lift all bongs....or is that boats full of weed will lift all buds....giggles.....pass the stash...Obama's coming to share his stash....giggles.....more giggles...legalize Ebola we'll smoke it....more giggles......

Stoploss's picture

Caucasion bitchezz!!!!!

 

brrrrp.

Kirk2NCC1701's picture

Cool!  I knew he'd be good for something.

Zero Govt's picture

He's not actually

...and anytime he sees a downsided chart his knee-jerk reaction is to call 'War' as a stimulus so please don't show it to him

Canadian Dirtlump's picture

Much like the fact that his middle name is robin, as is the name of his wife and ex wife, I think he is imbued with some sort of malevolent spirit which tends to lend itself to synchronicities like the grand mal seizure that is the revenue base.

Freddie's picture

How many millions of trees have these vile propagandists at the NY Times murdered?  How many forests have they destroyed?

Canadian Dirtlump's picture

Too goddamned many. Same goes for the rolls of toilet paper that rubenesque troll has murdered thanks to his doubtless suspect diet judging my his aerodynamic pear shape.

ThisIsBob's picture

Paper pulp is derived mostly from managed forrests, tree farms and recycling.  Many jobs.  Thank you for buying the Times.

P Rankmug's picture

Nothing revenue wise that a little space alien invasion of the NYT wouldn't solve.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/08/14/paul-krugman-calls...

Itchy and Scratchy's picture

Somebody is payin' him?

globozart's picture

Since he worships paper he get's paper. Or he works for the paper. Whatever.

phaedrus1952's picture

They need to break some windows.

Kilgore Trout's picture

Broken windows at the Times would profit NYC glaziers. What the Times needs is a good World War.

TheSecondLaw's picture

But take money from the doughnut stands 'cause it was used to pay the glaziers instead.

youngman's picture

It comes standard on an Obama phone as an app......but I would never ever buy one for any reason...trash is just that ...trash

Rompoculos's picture

"All the news that's print to fit"

buzzsaw99's picture

the right audience = libs who like the slimes slant and propaganda?

Tsar Pointless's picture

I guess you have a real short memory, and forget how the New York Times - not slimes, stop being a child - carried the water for the Cheney Administration and parroted its propaganda on the march toward the ill-fated invasion of Iraq.

A "liberal" newspaper wouldn't have done that.

buzzsaw99's picture

the last thing i read from the times was a series of articles on drugs and horse racing a few years back. i admit, they could be totally rino by now and i wouldn't know it. as for propaganda i know damn well they haven't quit because they all do it.

Rainman's picture

A "liberal" newspaper would do that if they had an overwhelming subscriber/advertiser base supporting Israel.

Mojeaux18's picture

Yeah - and liberals would never vote for or support said war either...except many did.

Al Franken (supported), Biden, Hillary, Schumer, Edwards,  Feinstein, Reid...

kchrisc's picture

"I guess you have a real short memory, and forget how the New York Times - not slimes, stop being a child - carried the water for the Cheney Administration and parroted its propaganda on the march toward the ill-fated invasion of Iraq. A "liberal" newspaper wouldn't have done that."

You are almost there. Now, who REALLY benefited from the invasion of Iraq? The answer to that is the answer to who really runs and controls the DC US.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/greater-israel-the-zionist-plan-for-the-mid...

 

"Liberal, conservative, neo-con, Republican, Democrat, etc. are like the costumes of the players in a theatrical play."

NotApplicable's picture

Well, one has to admit, Colon Pal and his little vial of dishsoap was pretty convincing.

MASTER OF UNIVERSE's picture

CORRECTION: "...are like the costumes of the players in a really

bad 'B' rated theatrical play".

there, fixed it.

 

froze25's picture

Not too worry, the Government will make sure that the NY Times survives. How else would the White house distribute its talking points for the day or decide what stories are talked about on all the other papers and TV "news" stations.

Der Wille Zur Macht's picture

IF MORE PEOPLE WOULD SIMPLY RIP UP THE PAPER, IT WOULD CREATE A BOOM FOR MORE DIGITAL SUBSCRIBERS (AND POSSIBLY SCOTCH TAPE), THEREBY STIMULATING THE ECONOMY. - PAUL KRUGMAN

jay28elle's picture

I think it was Krugman who coined the phrase, "Just wait for it..."

centerline's picture

NYT- you reap what you sow.

ShorTed's picture

+1 Couldn't agree more.

The irony of this piece is it's exactly the kind of skewed logic Krugman uses to browbeat his targets.

Pareto's picture

Causation!!!  Bitchezzzz!

Dr. Engali's picture

The fact that the MSM  only offered statist propaganda gave an opening for the truth seeking  internet to destroy their revenue stream. The market is clearly saying no to what they are selling, and it will only get worse. Even though the NYTs is in the paper business they won't be able to print their way out of this mess.

NotAMathWhiz's picture

Yeah, +1 for that.  I dislike Krugman as much as the next capable-of-independent-thought human, but he's only a part of the problem with the NYT.   I'm usually extremely pessimistic when it comes to anything that requires thought by the average american, but I find declining sales for this rag to be a very positive sign.

Canoe Driver's picture

The NYT is indeed engaged in biased reporting and propaganda, as well as purported tutelage to a quite dumbed-down would-be gentry. Nevertheless, the main reason for its declining sales is that, with few exceptions, no one reads anymore at all.

In 2007, when Norman Mailer died, no one at Minetta Tavern, spending $200 per person on dinner, could tell me who he was.