By paulgillin | December 9, 2008 - 9:06 am - Posted in Facebook

Miami Herald For Sale
McClatchy puts the south Florida institution on the auction block, perhaps as a way to raise money to pay off its Knight-Ridder debt. But who’s going to buy the paper? Other titles that have been taken off the market for lack of interest include the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, San Diego Union-Tribune and Austin American-Statesman.

New York Times To Leverage HQ For Ready Cash

The New York Times Co. is borrowing $225 million against a portion of its new headquarters in Manhattan. The company has to raise money to make a $400 million payment on one of its revolving lines of credit this coming May; the other $400 million line of credit, as yet untapped, may very well be canceled by financiers spooked by the credit crunch and economic downturn.”

Viacom, NBC, Others Cull 30,000 in Fight for Their Future – Advertising Age

The media industries have shed more than 30,000 jobs in 2008, according to an Ad Age analysis of Department of Labor employment statistics and news reports. That’s about 3.5% of the total media work force of 858,000. Since the bubble-inflated high-water mark in 2000, media has lost more than 200,000 jobs.

WPP’s media-buying unit Group M is predicting a 3.9% fall in U.S. ad spending in 2009, according to estimates to be released this week. That’s after no ad spending growth from 2007 to 2008.

Fitch Ratings is predicting the weakest year for advertising since 2001. BMO Capital Markets is predicting a 2% drop in U.S. advertising in 2009 but a deeper 5.4% slide in spending on measured media, with radio down 7.6%, broadcast TV down 8.7%, newspapers down 12.1% and magazines down 8.2%.

The good news for media companies is that consumers are spending more time in front of screens than ever before, said Group M Chief Investment Officer Rino Scanzoni. “We are looking at a generation of people that have grown up with multiple media that are now becoming major consumers. Viewing has increased; it’s just fragmented over more pieces.

Would You Pay Money to See Your Favorite Site Ad-Free?
Frank N. Magid Associates asked consumers if they would pay for Web content. The results were resouding. Quoting:

When we asked consumers if they would pay $39.99 a year, which comes out to less than $4 a month, for an ad-free version of one of their favorite sites, only 2.4% said definitely yes, they would be likely to do so…At the lower price of $29.99 a year, or less than $3 a month, only another 1.9% of consumers said they would be very likely to pay for an ad-free version.

Christie Hefner Exits Playboy
It seems the end of a 20-year rein as CEO should merit more than a one-paragraph news brief. Also, who’s going to replace her?



This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 9th, 2008 at 9:06 am and is filed under Facebook. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments Off on Quick Hits, 12/9/08


  1. December 9, 2008 @ 12:28 pm

    Re: Ad-free site…for a fee…

    That misses the point. There’s so much free information on the Net. So, if someone charges, you just move to another site.

    You could ask: Would you pay $1.00 a year and you probably would still get a low percentage. On the Net, the standard is free, not fee.

    Posted by ken leebow
  2. December 10, 2008 @ 2:58 am

    I would pay a small amount of money — say 0.05 to 0.5 cents — for each time I clicked on a website.

    But I would not pay a yearly subscription. There are too many websites for that to be practical.

    Posted by Evil Pundit