Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/04/10

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] In defence of the newspapers
From: images at comporium.net (Tina Manley)
Date: Thu Apr 10 10:53:16 2008
References: <20080409203333.2B88ABA1@resin15.mta.everyone.net> <46182EEF-D51F-4286-BB90-9BDF0C2FA07C@nathanfoto.com> <FDA45608-1F5A-4800-BAA4-FFB0DB7B1054@cox.net> <9DB8EBBE-6F88-4C1C-BF05-1B9E77CB1166@mac.com>

At 12:16 PM 4/10/2008, you wrote:
>and overall, exec whining aside, profits are up for papers.
>and
><http://www.freepress.net/news/21105>
>
>Fond regards,
>George

That's not really what it says.  It says that based on a mathematical 
model, newspapers would make more profit if they didn't cut staff, as 
they are doing now.

"Since the start of 2007, Time Warner Inc.'s Time Inc. said it would 
cut 289 jobs, and the New York Times Co. announced plans to shed 125 
jobs and close foreign bureaus for its Boston Globe newspaper."  and

"Publishers have focused on reviving circulation, which is declining, 
and renewing interest among advertisers who are moving their money to 
the Internet and other media."

It goes on to say that it would be wonderful if publishers looked at 
the study and decided that profits would rise if the improved 
quality, but that they won't do that because they are only interested 
in making more money right now.

Still depressing.

Tina 


Replies: Reply from richard-lists at imagecraft.com (Richard Man) ([Leica] In defence of the newspapers)
Reply from tedgrant at shaw.ca (Ted Grant) ([Leica] In defence of the newspapers)
In reply to: Message from afirkin at afirkin.com (Alastair Firkin) ([Leica] WAS: Selling gear NOW: Free shooters. :-()
Message from nathan at nathanfoto.com (Nathan Wajsman) ([Leica] In defence of the newspapers)
Message from kididdoc at cox.net (Steve Barbour) ([Leica] In defence of the newspapers)
Message from imagist3 at mac.com (Lottermoser George) ([Leica] In defence of the newspapers)