Black and white (or is it red?) all over
The Seattle Times Co. is on its way back to profitability, a glowing New York Times article reported recently, but the paper's own numbers raise doubts.
Is The Seattle Times on the rebound or still on the skids?
Last month, The New York Times proclaimed Seattle’s remaining ink-on-paper daily “resurgent” since its print rival, the Post-Intelligencer, folded in March. In an Aug. 10 article, the New York paper’s media reporter Richard Perez-Pena quoted Seattle Times Publisher Frank Blethen saying, “On a month-to-month basis we are starting to operate in the black.”
Blethen’s carefully hedged statement was widely cited as a hopeful sign in the floundering newspaper industry. The Seattle Times itself ran Perez-Pena’s article six days after it originally appeared, noting it “sparked dialogue in the continuing conversation about the future of newspapers and journalism.”
Like almost every other newspaper in the country, the Times is struggling. Under withering pressure from the economy’s collapse and the migration of readers and advertisers from print to the Internet, the Times’ workforce now stands at 1,284, down almost 25 percent from five years ago. Earlier this year, Blethen told state legislators the paper was “literally holding on by our fingertips" and needed a B&O tax break to help it survive.
He got his tax break, but determining whether the Seattle paper is clawing its way back to the black may not be quite as easy.
On July 20, just three weeks before The New York Times article appeared, Seattle Times Co. President Carolyn Kelly sent a memo to the paper’s staffers saying the company had revised the Times' projected advertising revenue downward several times this year and calculated the paper’s total 2009 ad revenue would fall 30 percent below that of 2008. By the end of this year, Kelly said, the Seattle Times will have lost “a staggering 45 percent” of its total ad revenue in two years.
The Times revenue projection tracks fairly closely with ad revenue declines across the newspaper industry. Nonetheless, Kelly wrote, “The stunning drop in revenue due to the ‘Great Recession’ has exceeded even our greatest fears.” The paper’s only financial bright spot was a jump in circulation revenue, due to a transfer of some 90,000 P-I subscribers to the Times rolls after the P-I’s shutdown.
Perez-Pena told Crosscut this week he could not recall whether he saw Kelly’s memo. Blethen did not offer details on how the Times’ June profit was calculated, he said.
So which is it: Is the Times resurgent or headed for still harder times?
Spokeswoman Jill Mackie said Blethen was not claiming the Times is now profitable “in an unqualified way.” Mackie explained in an email to Crosscut that although operating revenue in June exceeded the company’s operating expenses, “This does not mean our revenue exceeds expenses every month. It means there are signs of improvement.”
One of the most promising signs for the Times, according to Mackie, has been the paper’s ability to hold on to former P-I subscribers. Under their joint operating agreement, the Times managed subscription chores for both papers. When the P-I closed in March, Times circulation officials automatically switched some 90,000 P-I subscribers to their own rolls, a move that immediately boosted the Times total circulation from about 200,000 to 290,000.
Perez-Pena said Times officials told him that by June the paper’s daily circulation was slightly over 260,000, still up by about 60,000, or 30 percent, from the Times’ circulation before the P-I’s shutdown. The good news for the Times, Mackie said, was that about 84 percent of the former P-I subscribers elected to re-up with the Times when their P-I subscriptions lapsed. Mackie did not disclose, however, how many P-I subscriptions were included in the 84 percent figure and how many had still not lapsed by June. It was also not clear how much new revenue the P-I crossovers added to the Times bottom line. In general, industry officials say circulation accounts for about 20 percent of a newspaper’s revenue base. However, there’s an extended effect — good or bad — because advertising, which accounts for most of the paper’s revenue, is sold based on circulation numbers.
The bad news is that just three months after the P-I closed, a third of the former P-I subscribers had defected from the Times. Some 10,000 of them held subscriptions with both papers and dropped off when the P-I shut. The rest of the defections, Mackie speculated, were primarily due to vacation cancellations and the summer shutdown of the Times’ school-distribution program.
So depending on who is counting, circulation at the Seattle Times in June was either up 30 percent, with former P-I readers switching to the Times in droves, or off by 30,000, as P-I subscribers defected en masse. More reliable circulation numbers should be available at the end of this month, when the newspaper trade group, Audit Bureau of Circulations, issues its six-month totals.
Another critical number is how much further the Times can cut its spending if needed. Last month, Blethen told NPR that the Times Co. had slashed $89 million in two years — an enormous cut for a company its size. According to Mackie, spending cuts at the paper have kept pace with its revenue loss over the past two years. But with a 30 percent projected advertising revenue shortfall for this year the Times could be hard-pressed to cut deeper.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Comments:
Posted Thu, Sep 17, 8:09 a.m. inappropriate
The current Seattle Times is one they can be proud of? Too thin in size and news reporting it is overpriced at 75 cents.
Blethen always has his hands out for tax breaks and cuts but is ever ready to support taxing the citizens of Seattle to support the grand schemes of his corporate pals. Here's two links to a couple oldies but goodies from the Seattle Weekly back when it was worth reading. Pun intended.
http://www.seattleweekly.com/1998-09-16/news/the-times-mission
"Perhaps Times editorial page editor Mindy Cameron will then be called before the News Council to explain one of the most noteworthy cases of editorial backpedaling in recent memory. Perhaps she will tell the council—composed of Patsy Bullitt Collins, Jim Ellis, Bill Gerberding, Mike Lowry, Charles Royer, and other dignitaries—the same thing she told me last week: "The main, consistent theme of the Times editorial page has been looking at and supporting public-policy moves that help to ensure the survival of downtown. We responded at first with a sharp editorial, but in the end we thought that this was a good project all around, and that it fulfills our central mission—which is maintaining a vital downtown community.""
http://www.seattleweekly.com/1998-11-11/news/who-really-runs-seattle
"Next Monday, as on every Monday for the past 65 years, 50 or so people will gather in the Meisnest Room of the Washington Athletic Club at Sixth and Union in downtown Seattle, at the invitation of the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce. They'll eat lunch, listen to a speech by a local eminence, and spend an hour chatting about issues of special interest to those special and interested enough to have made the invite list. Members of this "Monday Club"—bankers, newspaper publishers, former elected officials, real estate developers, television executives, attorneys, venture capitalists, and others with big stakes in how public policy and public perception are shaped—will use this session to brainstorm ways of turning their dreams and schemes into reality. They'll do it Seattle-style—in polite, orderly fashion, nodding or winking to get the attention of the chair, who will moderate the gathering more like a parlor-room salon than a public hearing."
Posted Thu, Sep 17, 8:11 a.m. inappropriate
The biggest losers in Seattle when the Times folds will be it's employees and the business interests who run this town. The rest of us will do just fine.
Posted Thu, Sep 17, 10:53 a.m. inappropriate
The "Great Recession" is not the cause of the loss in Times revenues, and here's the proof: the loss in revenues began before the recession hit. This is important for the newspaper to understand, because there is no comeback after the recession. Things will not go back to the way they were. Too many businesses have found alternative ways of advertising via the Internet or whatever, and the ranks of the big spenders have been considerably thinned.
Posted Thu, Sep 17, 12:41 p.m. inappropriate
Resurgent, adjective, reviving after a period of little activity or a decline on popularity -- seems whatever the continuing economic woes to be a word properly employed by the copy writer whop write the NYTimes article headline.
Posted Thu, Sep 17, 2:36 p.m. inappropriate
To correct and clarify the "reverandmoney" comment (quoting from a Sept. 16, 1998, Seattle Weekly story):
The Washington News Council would never have "called" Times editorial page editor Mindy Cameron -- or anyone else -- to explain a case of "editorial backpedaling." The WNC, founded in 1998, considers complaints against media organizations from citizens, but does not initiate cases. Complaints must deal with issues of factual accuracy, not editorial opinion. Furthermore, the people cited in the Weekly's article -- Patsy Bullitt Collins (now deceased), Jim Ellis, Bill Gerberding, Mike Lowry, Charles Royer, et al. -- were not Council members. They comprised the WNC's Founding Board, who continue to be supportive and helpful after 11 years. For more details on the Council's history and accomplishments, see www.wanewscouncil.org.
Posted Fri, Sep 18, 8:40 a.m. inappropriate
To correct "reverandmoney" from some other angles:
Commenting on an article about the Seattle Times company, you talk as if the paper were nothing but its editorial and opinion pages. Those are one or two pages per day.
I help produce those pages. Because of the political stands the Times took in the 90s, we do have a number of readers who accuse us of being shills for downtown Seattle commercial interests. We are not opposed to downtown business and never have been, but do consider:
The largest obviously downtown-centric issue of this decade has been the Alaskan Way Viaduct. The downtown point of view was that the Viaduct had to be replaced by a tunnel, because it would free up views from downtown properties and attract more visitors. Until the fairly recent deal between Gregoire, Nickels and Sims for a deep-bore tunnel, the Times editorial pages favored building a new Viaduct. That was the West Seattle and Burien point of view--the Magnolia, Queen Anne, Ballard, Greenwood, Phinney, Fremont and Wallingford point of view. Not the downtown point of view.
Light rail is a project that favors downtown Seattle but is paid for by the region (and the feds). The Times editorial page supported light rail in the 90s, when Mindy Cameron was editorial page editor, but switched sides in about 2002, when Jim Vesely was editor, and opposed the last two proposals to raise taxes for it. That wasn't a downtown point of view.
The South Lake Union Streetcar is a project that favors downtown, but the Seattle Times editorialized against it because of its capital cost (nearly $50m) and high operating cost that would be taken out of the money for bus service. Our position on the streetcar was closer to the position of Nick Licata.
I'm not portraying us as some kind of lefty outfit. Obviously, we're not. We opposed the head tax, and will oppose other proposals that hurt downtown business. We're very strongly for keeping Boeing Commercial Airplanes--all of it--in the region. But when "reverandmoney" says Frank Blethen "is ever ready to support taxing the citizens of Seattle to support the grand schemes of his corporate pals," and offers up an article TEN YEARS OLD--does he read the paper, or does he just have a scrapbook?
Bruce Ramsey, Seattle Times editorial pages
Posted Fri, Sep 18, 11:02 a.m. inappropriate
How about taxing the citizens of Seattle (and everywhere else) to support the grand schemes of himself?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009212482_apwanewspapertaxcuts.html
Posted Fri, Sep 18, 11:12 p.m. inappropriate
Mr Ramsey doesn't mention the Monday lunches with local movers and shakers mentioned in the ten year old Weekly piece above. Is the Times still attending those meetings-assuming they are still being held. Are all attendees at those meetings still sworn to secrecy? What kind of journalist attends meetings about the direction of this city and promises not to report on them?
And Mr Ramsey doesn't mention Frank Blethen and the Estate Tax repeal lobbying he has been involved in for years and the effect that activity, and some editorials the Times has written favoring the repeal, has had on the Times' reputation.
I did a quick search and couldn't find that editorial favoring repeal of the estate tax from a couple years ago but here is a link to a Postman piece that addresses the matter.
http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/davidpostman/2006/08/frank_blethen_on_estate_tax_lobbying.html
And let's not forget the role the Times played in providing political cover for those politicians who over-rode the will of the voters and passed emergency legislation to build the Mariners stadium and then went on to support Paul Allen's campaign to compel taxpayers to fund a football stadium he could have built with his pocket change.
Posted Fri, Sep 18, 11:14 p.m. inappropriate
"does he read the paper, or does he just have a scrapbook?"
Ramsey just jumped the snark.
Posted Sun, Sep 20, 9:31 a.m. inappropriate
I replied to "Reverandmoney" accusation, above, that the Seattle Times editorial page was a shill for downtown interests by citing three causes from this decade in which the page disagreed with the downtown view: the Alaskan Way Viaduct, Sound Transit light rail and the South Lake Union Streetcar. "Reverandmoney's" reply passes over all of these things. He ignores them. He did not answer anything I wrote, but I will answer what he wrote. It's a Sunday, it's raining, and here goes...
He accuses me of not reading the Seattle Weekly article of 10 years ago that he posted. Well, he has smoked me out. I confess, I did not read it. Here it is:
http://www.seattleweekly.com/1998-09-16/news/the-times-mission
Now I have read it. It is the fervid accusation that Times Publisher Frank Blethen had lunch with some big, important downtown guys every Monday, 11 years ago. The writer imputes vast conspiratorial meaning from these supposed lunches. Clearly the writer was not at any such lunch, himself, and he does not quote anyone who was. The whole article is a leftist rant. For the record, I don't know what lunches Frank attended 11 years ago, and I am not going to ask him.
"Reverandmoney" asks about meetings "sworn to secrecy." Individual writers do have meetings with people off the record sometimes, though our Editorial Board meetings (group meetings) are almost never that way. "Reverandmoney" asks: "What kind of journalist attends meetings about the direction of this city and promises not to report on them?" Sometimes I have a sandwich with someone and say, "OK, we're off the record. Let's just talk." Some people won't talk to you, otherwise. This is normal. It is not some big cabal, as is suggested by "reverandmoney's" feverish use of the words "sworn" and "promise." His use of those words suggests he has never been in journalism and doesn't know how it works.
He accuses me of not mentioning the paper's editorials on the estate tax. True enough, but I thought we were talking about favoring downtown. Let's stick to the topic, OK?
"Reverandmoney" continues: "And let's not forget the role the Times played in providing political cover for those politicians who over-rode the will of the voters and passed emergency legislation to build the Mariners stadium and then went on to support Paul Allen's campaign to compel taxpayers to fund a football stadium he could have built with his pocket change."
Yeah, OK. I agree with him about that. But that was more than 10 years ago. When the Sonics came along in 2006 and tried to do the same thing, the paper did not champion them in the same way--but "Reverandmoney" did not notice. I think 2006 is too recent for him.
Bruce Ramsey
Seattle Times editorial page
Posted Sun, Sep 20, 6:01 p.m. inappropriate
"He accuses me of not reading the Seattle Weekly article of 10 years ago that he posted...
I did not make that accusation. I did wonder if the meetings continue. Mr Ramsey did not address that question.
"The whole article is a leftist rant." LOL
"Yeah, OK. I agree with him about that (Times role in the Mariners stadium vote). But that was more than 10 years ago."
"I think 2006 is too recent for him."
But the taxes continue. I paid a tax on my cafe breakfast this morning to subsidize the mariners stadium.
Posted Sun, Sep 20, 6:23 p.m. inappropriate
"I think 2006 is too recent for him." I cofess, Mr. Ramsey, I do seldom read the Seattle Times these days. At $.75 it's a poor value.
Here is a neat piece by former The Stranger news editor (now with publicola.net) Josh Feit about Seattle Times editorial board positions taken and those held by a Republican (pro-estate tax repeal) candidate for the US Senate. It is dated 2006'
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=93641
"So, the question remains: What does the Seattle Times like about McGavick? In fact, I challenge the Seattle Times to add up the issues on which it agrees with McGavick (based on its editorial, I count two: storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain and repealing the federal estate tax) and measure them against issues on which it disagrees with McGavick (I count eight: the detainees bill, gay marriage, ANWR, gun control, net neutrality and media consolidation, teaching intelligent design in public schools, the war in Iraq, and Social Security). Seattle Times editorial page editor James Vesely did not return my call, so I'm stuck going off the paper's endorsement to figure it out."
Posted Sun, Sep 20, 6:23 p.m. inappropriate
"I think 2006 is too recent for him." I confess, Mr. Ramsey, I do seldom read the Seattle Times these days. At $.75 it's a poor value.
Here is a neat piece by former The Stranger news editor (now with publicola.net) Josh Feit about Seattle Times editorial board positions taken and those held by a Republican (pro-estate tax repeal) candidate for the US Senate. It is dated 2006'
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=93641
"So, the question remains: What does the Seattle Times like about McGavick? In fact, I challenge the Seattle Times to add up the issues on which it agrees with McGavick (based on its editorial, I count two: storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain and repealing the federal estate tax) and measure them against issues on which it disagrees with McGavick (I count eight: the detainees bill, gay marriage, ANWR, gun control, net neutrality and media consolidation, teaching intelligent design in public schools, the war in Iraq, and Social Security). Seattle Times editorial page editor James Vesely did not return my call, so I'm stuck going off the paper's endorsement to figure it out."