Showing posts with label Time Inc.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Time Inc.. Show all posts

Monday, November 2, 2009

Time Inc. expected to cut another 400 jobs in face of declining revenues

Last fall, Time Inc. cut 600 jobs to save $150 million. This week, probably Wednesday, according to a story in MediaDailyNews, it is expected to eliminate up to 400 more jobs as the company plans to cut another $100 million in costs in the face of continuing decline in advertising and circulation revenue -- ad revenues down 26%, circ revenues 22.2% in the 2nd quarter of the year.

Another large

Monday, October 26, 2009

Fortune magazine cuts back to 18 issues a year

Fortune magazine is being cut back to 18 issues a year from 25, says Time Inc. According to a story on Bloomberg.com, while each issue will be somewhat larger, the new publication schedule is part of another round of cuts aimed at meeting parent Time Warner Inc.'s targets for savings. In November 2008, Time Inc. eliminated 600 jobs (about 6 per cent of the work force).At Fortune, advertising

Friday, October 2, 2009

Time Inc. is not for sale, now or later, says its CEO

Despite the flurry of bloggy speculation, Time Warner is not going to sell its magazines, according to its CEO, Jeff Bewkes. During an Atlantic Monthly conference in Washington, according to a post on Daily Finance by Jeff Bercovci, Bewkes was asked a direct question and gave a similarly direct answer."Time Inc. is not for sale," Bewkes told his interviewer, journalist Jeffrey Goldberg. "People

Wednesday, September 5, 2007

Business 2.0 closing

Time Inc. is closing down Business 2.0, a monthly magazine about the "new economy" and will absorb part of its San Francisco-based staff into Fortune magazine. Since the magazine was founded in 1999, it has lost about US$110 million. Time Warner (as it was) bought the-then biweekly title in 2001 for US$68 million from the British company that started it and merged it with its struggling startup e

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

Taking a summer plunge on digi-mags at Time Inc.

"It's just a nice, fun bonus that we're offering our consumer." -- Time Inc. group publisher Paul Caine, referring to the digital online "one-shot test" edition of People magazine. A story in Ad Age says that Time Inc. executives are keeping expectations low about the test because no one knows how well such digital initiatives will do. (A lot of people working for the corporation are wondering,

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

No online slackers allowed, says Time editor

Time magazine is turning up the heat under its writers and columnists to contribute to Time.com as well as the print magazine. The website was re-launched 4 months ago and while editor Richard Stengel says the results have been good, they're not good enough. According to an item carried in Gawker, he sent a memo to all staff that said,in effect,the future of their jobs depended upon it. As good

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Teen People web venture to be wound up

Apparently it was not a brave, new world for TeenPeople.com, the online version of Teen People, which Time Inc has announced will be subsumed within the People magazine website. It has been less than a year since the print magazine was discontinued with a lot of bold talk about the digital future.The readers of Teen People were said to be more attuned to accessing the content online, making the

Monday, March 26, 2007

Pale shadow of LIFE snuffed out

Time Inc. has announced that the venerable title LIFE will cease publication -- again -- effective April 20. There are many who have felt that the magazine, which had a glorious history as the pre-eminent picture magazine, had been suffering sort of a living death as a stripped-down newspaper supplement.Now, the name and image will only appear online as a photography portal and in certain branded

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Time takes some compliments

We don't often get to see the U.S. edition of Time, unless it's in transit at a U.S. airport, but the magazine has undergone a much-publicized redesign, which was unveiled last Friday. The cover subject was a brief flash of controversy because it showed Ronald Reagan with a phony tear trickling down his cheek (we thought the idea was so crashingly, obviously an illustration that we wondered why