The Wall Street Journal said that around 500 people will be cut from the world's largest magazine company -- home to Time, Sports Illustrated and People, among others -- though other outlets said the numbers could reach as high as 700. That means that the roughly 8,000-strong workforce would be cut by between 6 and 8 percent.
Time Inc. is reportedly seeking around $100 million in savings from the cuts. Ad sales and publishing and subscription revenues have all declined. New CEO Laura Lang has been tasked with righting the ship.
More
9 comments:
Maybe, just maybe, it had more to do with media trends (shift from print publications) than "Obama's economy". You think? No you don't. Just blow with whatever antiObma wind comes your way.
11:16-you're an idiot who continues to support an empty suit as president who has no record of accomplishment. Get off the couch and go get a job, moron.
A "shifting media trend" like the DT is enduring now?
Couldn't possibly be crappy and biased reporting which no one values at all or trusts, therefore not worth the money?
Considering the "shift" in "media trends" isn't exactly a new concept I'm not exactly sure that correlation can be made. Lots and lots of money to be made with being online anyway to make up for loss of print subscriptions, if of course Time hadn't sold it's soul to Obama and Co.
So what excuse do you have for the massive layoffs occuring in the healthcare industry, 11:16?
and everywhere else 11:16. You dont suppose it was people like you that put this loser back in office?
I hope they started in the parking lot looking for Obama bumper stickers....
1:17 I've heard a lot of employers are looking for that criteria for who to lay off next, especially the ones that need to make a decision because of increased cost for Obummer care.
Before March we will see a drastic reduction in the workforce because of Obamacare. Get ready folks the bottom will fall out real soon. Obama wanted change and all those on a free ride from the working taxpayer voted for him. It was his plan and ignorant voters supported it.
1132, funny, I didn't think pointing out a clear fallacy in an argument (layoffs because of Obama w/o the author considering market trends) suddenly leads to blind support of anyone. If you are looking for a "moron" perhaps you should look in the mirror.
1150 yes, not a new trend, yet that doesn't mean it isn't still impacting the bottom line of media outlets. Just look at how many other outlets have cut their workforce for the same reason. Now all of a sudden when Time does it, no no, it has to be Obama's fault. You folks are laughable. And common sense says that a movement to less print and more online content could easily end up leading to job cuts.
Post a Comment