<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Morning Lineup &#8211; December 28</title>
	<atom:link href="http://firegeezer.com/2008/12/28/morning-lineup-december-28-3/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://firegeezer.com/2008/12/28/morning-lineup-december-28-3/</link>
	<description>The Fire/EMS Digital Dayroom</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 02:25:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dal90</title>
		<link>http://firegeezer.com/2008/12/28/morning-lineup-december-28-3/comment-page-1/#comment-1673</link>
		<dc:creator>Dal90</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Dec 2008 20:41:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firegeezer.com/?p=5353#comment-1673</guid>
		<description>Some aspects are almost like watching a slow-motion dot.com bubble burst.

(I used to work for the Worcester T&amp;G, which was part of the New York Times family and I remain thoroughly fascinated by the business)

New York Times in November had a 21% decline in advertising revenue over Nov &#039;07.  That&#039;s enormous -- and it follows year-to-date declines of 16% in October and 14% in September.  Let&#039;s not forget these aren&#039;t sudden occurences -- ad revenue has been declining since the dot.com bubble burst.  (Particularly in the top tier papers like the Globe and the Times, dot.coms spent a lot of money on help wanted and pat-yourself-on-the-back ads)

The Times is looking to take out a mortgage on their recently completed new headquarters (kind of dot.com-ish in building fancy buildings...) as well as sell their 17.5% ownership in the Boston Red Sox (again, dot.com-ish in investments far away from core businesses).

Once those moves are made, there&#039;s not much else they can sell without causing even deeper long term damage -- such as selling off about.com which would raise some quick cash, but deny them the long term income stream in a growing market.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Some aspects are almost like watching a slow-motion dot.com bubble burst.</p>
<p>(I used to work for the Worcester T&amp;G, which was part of the New York Times family and I remain thoroughly fascinated by the business)</p>
<p>New York Times in November had a 21% decline in advertising revenue over Nov &#8217;07.  That&#8217;s enormous &#8212; and it follows year-to-date declines of 16% in October and 14% in September.  Let&#8217;s not forget these aren&#8217;t sudden occurences &#8212; ad revenue has been declining since the dot.com bubble burst.  (Particularly in the top tier papers like the Globe and the Times, dot.coms spent a lot of money on help wanted and pat-yourself-on-the-back ads)</p>
<p>The Times is looking to take out a mortgage on their recently completed new headquarters (kind of dot.com-ish in building fancy buildings&#8230;) as well as sell their 17.5% ownership in the Boston Red Sox (again, dot.com-ish in investments far away from core businesses).</p>
<p>Once those moves are made, there&#8217;s not much else they can sell without causing even deeper long term damage &#8212; such as selling off about.com which would raise some quick cash, but deny them the long term income stream in a growing market.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dal90</title>
		<link>http://firegeezer.com/2008/12/28/morning-lineup-december-28-3/comment-page-1/#comment-13389</link>
		<dc:creator>Dal90</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Dec 2008 20:41:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firegeezer.com/?p=5353#comment-13389</guid>
		<description>Some aspects are almost like watching a slow-motion dot.com bubble burst.

(I used to work for the Worcester T&amp;G, which was part of the New York Times family and I remain thoroughly fascinated by the business)

New York Times in November had a 21% decline in advertising revenue over Nov &#039;07.  That&#039;s enormous -- and it follows year-to-date declines of 16% in October and 14% in September.  Let&#039;s not forget these aren&#039;t sudden occurences -- ad revenue has been declining since the dot.com bubble burst.  (Particularly in the top tier papers like the Globe and the Times, dot.coms spent a lot of money on help wanted and pat-yourself-on-the-back ads)

The Times is looking to take out a mortgage on their recently completed new headquarters (kind of dot.com-ish in building fancy buildings...) as well as sell their 17.5% ownership in the Boston Red Sox (again, dot.com-ish in investments far away from core businesses).

Once those moves are made, there&#039;s not much else they can sell without causing even deeper long term damage -- such as selling off about.com which would raise some quick cash, but deny them the long term income stream in a growing market.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Some aspects are almost like watching a slow-motion dot.com bubble burst.</p>
<p>(I used to work for the Worcester T&amp;G, which was part of the New York Times family and I remain thoroughly fascinated by the business)</p>
<p>New York Times in November had a 21% decline in advertising revenue over Nov &#8217;07.  That&#8217;s enormous &#8212; and it follows year-to-date declines of 16% in October and 14% in September.  Let&#8217;s not forget these aren&#8217;t sudden occurences &#8212; ad revenue has been declining since the dot.com bubble burst.  (Particularly in the top tier papers like the Globe and the Times, dot.coms spent a lot of money on help wanted and pat-yourself-on-the-back ads)</p>
<p>The Times is looking to take out a mortgage on their recently completed new headquarters (kind of dot.com-ish in building fancy buildings&#8230;) as well as sell their 17.5% ownership in the Boston Red Sox (again, dot.com-ish in investments far away from core businesses).</p>
<p>Once those moves are made, there&#8217;s not much else they can sell without causing even deeper long term damage &#8212; such as selling off about.com which would raise some quick cash, but deny them the long term income stream in a growing market.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic
Page Caching using disk: basic

Served from: firegeezer.com @ 2012-05-23 04:55:30 -->
