Really, this is just a coincidence, but since I think Paul Krugman is both a buffoon and shameless hack pretending to understand economics, I made this assumption…liberals assume all the time why can’t I??
Things at the NYT are not going quite as planned. From the FT:
A fall in advertising sales and stepped-up investment in digital products sapped second-quarter profit at the New York Times as the publisher forecast flat circulation revenue and further declines in advertising in the coming months.
Net income of $9.2m, or 6 cents a share, was down 54 per cent from $20.1m, or 13 cents a share, a year ago. Adjusted operating profit, which strips out some one-time items including retirement costs and depreciation, fell 21 per cent to $55.7m.
A trio of digital offerings – the NYT Now app, targeted at mobile users, a standalone opinion app and a higher-priced premium subscription service – helped lift circulation revenues in the quarter. But the company said subscriber growth for its website and core mobile app had flagged, and said it needed to do a better job of marketing its offerings to the right audiences.
Or another way of showing it, here are the NYT’s revenues since hiring Paul Krugman as an Op-Ed columnist. Correlation or causation?