Newsweek's financial freefall is jarring. Revenue
dropped 38 percent between 2007 and 2009, to $165 million.
Newsweek's negligible operating loss (not including
certain pension and early retirement changes) of $3 million in
2007 turned into a bloodbath: the business lost $32 million in
2008 and $39.5 million in 2009. Even after reducing headcount
by 33 percent, and slashing the number of issues printed and
distributed to readers each week, from 2.6 million to 1.5
million, the 2010 operating loss is still forecast at $20
million.
Dig deeper into the document and the numbers get worse.
Newsweek lost money in all three of its core areas in
2008 and 2009: U.S. publishing, foreign publishing and digital.
Even with the smaller guaranteed circulation, it still retains
$40 million in subscription liabilities owed to readers. And
then there's Newsweek's lease foibles: last year, it paid $13
million in rent, a startling figure for a company of its size.
Never mind the first obvious problem: Newsweek got
scooped on the story of its own business dealings, which is
always a sign of trouble in a news organization. More
ominously, Lauria and Grove report:
Washington Post CEO Donald Graham apparently considered the
fact that Harman would need to retain Newsweek's back office
inefficiencies as a selling point. . . .
"Harman was someone who was taken less seriously by the staff
who worked on the deal because he had no plan," says a person
close to the deal. "He won the bid because he had the lowest
number of layoffs."
In other words, the 91-year-old Harman was preferred over other
prospective buyers specifically because he didn't
propose the first step necessary to stop the financial
hemorrhage: Drastically reduce payroll by axing some
of the dozens of senior Newsweek staffers who
collect six-figure salaries.
At least Harman's deal didn't include an extension of Jon
Meacham's disastrous tenure as editor -- an
atavistic exercise in elite journalistic narcissism
recounted by Andrew Ferguson -- but the buyer's evident
failure to recognize the fundamental source of Newsweek's losses
will ultimately spell bad news for Newsweek. Harman is
not immortal and his wealth is not infinite and, as Lauria and
Grove note, it's likely that the necessary cost-cutting will fall
to Harman's heirs.
Bad business decisions are never good news, and postponing the
bad news usually makes the bad news much worse.
The Newsweek staff can become a commune and do collective farming
on the side to subsidize operations. By keeping their
venerable/silly mag afloat, they can qualify later for the
planned government grants to left wing journalists, as described
elsewhere today at this web site.
I would wonder, if I was a shareholder in the Washington Post
Group, if the sale was made without consideration of maximizing
shareholder revenue, and thus possibly a disgruntled shareholder
might have standing to sue because a valuable asset was sold
without maximizing the revenue. I believe there was a much bigger
offer for the publication, and the $1 sale wiped out the
potential to earn some real cash. If I owned just one share of
WaPo, it'd be something I'd think about.
Teflon93| 8.3.10 @ 6:13PM
Obama will bail them out.
Old Bull| 8.3.10 @ 7:48PM
Jim, I agree completely with your view. However, I suspect that
the people who would own WaPo stock agree with management's point
of view, and shareholder value be damned! However, I think this
is a clear case of malfeasance on management's part.
Bob| 8.3.10 @ 8:42PM
The saddest part about this whole incident is the fact that no
one at Newsweek or the Washington Post is willing to admit their
lurch to the left is what landed them in the situation they are
in now.
danny| 8.3.10 @ 10:00PM
bob, kinda hard to lurch to the left when you were already
against the wall. wouldn't you agree?
Cuffs| 8.4.10 @ 11:20AM
Who cares??????????????????????
Derek Leaberry| 8.4.10 @ 1:07PM
Perhaps the Post should have sold it to Redskins owner Dan
Snyder. Yes, Newsweek would remain a laughing stock just like the
Redskins but it would make money.
Bob Miller| 8.3.10 @ 2:51PM
The Newsweek staff can become a commune and do collective farming on the side to subsidize operations. By keeping their venerable/silly mag afloat, they can qualify later for the planned government grants to left wing journalists, as described elsewhere today at this web site.
Jim Hlavac| 8.3.10 @ 6:00PM
I would wonder, if I was a shareholder in the Washington Post Group, if the sale was made without consideration of maximizing shareholder revenue, and thus possibly a disgruntled shareholder might have standing to sue because a valuable asset was sold without maximizing the revenue. I believe there was a much bigger offer for the publication, and the $1 sale wiped out the potential to earn some real cash. If I owned just one share of WaPo, it'd be something I'd think about.
Teflon93| 8.3.10 @ 6:13PM
Obama will bail them out.
Old Bull| 8.3.10 @ 7:48PM
Jim, I agree completely with your view. However, I suspect that the people who would own WaPo stock agree with management's point of view, and shareholder value be damned! However, I think this is a clear case of malfeasance on management's part.
Bob| 8.3.10 @ 8:42PM
The saddest part about this whole incident is the fact that no one at Newsweek or the Washington Post is willing to admit their lurch to the left is what landed them in the situation they are in now.
danny| 8.3.10 @ 10:00PM
bob, kinda hard to lurch to the left when you were already against the wall. wouldn't you agree?
Cuffs| 8.4.10 @ 11:20AM
Who cares??????????????????????
Derek Leaberry| 8.4.10 @ 1:07PM
Perhaps the Post should have sold it to Redskins owner Dan Snyder. Yes, Newsweek would remain a laughing stock just like the Redskins but it would make money.