<![CDATA[Gawker: By the numbers]]> http://cache.gawker.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/gawker.com.png <![CDATA[Gawker: By the numbers]]> http://gawker.com/tag/by the numbers http://gawker.com/tag/by the numbers <![CDATA[ Mad Professor Says One Billion Africans Will Die! ]]> luisSub-Saharan Africa had between 1.4 and 2.4 million new HIV infections in the last year, according to the most recent UNAIDS report—back in 2001, new infections were higher, between 1.7 and 2.7 million. HIV prevalence in adults is estimated at 5% in sub-Saharan Africa, down from its almost-6% estimate in 2000. That's one reason why there's something really, really odd about the conclusion of Michael Specter's fascinating piece on viruses in the New Yorker.

[U of C Irvine's Center for Virus Research director Luis P.] Villarreal predicts that, without an effective AIDS vaccine, nearly the entire population of Africa will eventually perish. "We can also expect at least a few humans to survive,'' he wrote. They would be people who have been infected with H.I.V. yet, for some reason, do not get sick. "These survivors would thus be left to repopulate the continent. However, the resulting human population would be distinct" from those whom H.I.V. makes sick.
The entire population??? Well, "eventually" can be a very long time, as it would be in the context of evolution. But that "eventually" in that case is tied to a lack of an AIDS vaccine. And while there are 2 million AIDS deaths or so a year in Africa, there are more than 10 times as many births. Even though population growth rate is projected to slow radically, Africa does have nearly a population of one billion people. (Well, 920 million or some such?) I spent 5 minutes with a calculator and didn't get very far—is there anyone more math-friendly who can "eventually" get a "zero" population figure on Africa? ]]>
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:10:33 EST Choire http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=328140&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Conde Nast Portfolio's December issue will ... ]]> octobercover.jpgConde Nast Portfolio's December issue will have 111.3 ad pages, says the Post's Keith Kelly: "That comes after a 185 ad-page debut in April, followed by 121.2 in September, 117.9 in October and 108.2 in November." (That's a bit more than 1/3rd of Vanity Fair's ad pages, right?) Meanwhile, we hear that on their website, media blogger Jeff Bercovici and finance blogger Felix Salmon have recently been trading off months as top traffic-getters. We also hear that the online ad folks are totally over the top! They don't have much inventory to sell, as site traffic is still low—and yet veritable hordes of them fly across the country to meet with agencies and pitch. The sales team sounds crazily over-built for the current size of the website.

]]>
Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:30:56 EDT Choire http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=315420&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ 'New York Times' August Numbers: TimesSelect So Not Worth It ]]> The New York Times Company announced its August revenues today, and each of their divisions is trending pretty much as expected—though ad revenues for The New York Times Media Group were up very slightly over August last year, on the back of fashion, hotel and tech ads, as opposed to July, which was down nearly 3% over last year. But more of the same in general: internet ads up! New England ads down. About.com ads still up. Sort of related: stock in the toilet. Most interesting to us: In July, TimesSelect had 225,100 paying customers. As of August, it had 226,800. That is exciting growth of 1700 paying customers! That is somewhere between $7,076.25 and $13,515 dollars, depending on whether folks bought by the month or by the year, which is like half of Maureen Dowd's expense account this month.

]]>
Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:30:14 EDT Choire http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=299034&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ The Painful Stagnation Of TimesSelect And Other Bad News ]]> nytLast week, Keith Kelly claimed that the New York Times will finally end the long national joke that is TimesSelect—you just know Maureen Dowd is cursing those Freakonomics guys right now for being able to refuse to have their blog behind the TimesSelect pay wall!—and a quick look at the just-out July numbers confirms that the core group of 225,000 or so people who signed up to pay for the service in the first place are pretty much the same people who still subscribe. (Everyone else either gets it free as part of their home delivery service, or as part of a college/university deal.) Whenever it does get shut down, it'll be a speck of egg on the faces of Times CEO Janet Robinson and Publisher Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger Jr. But the failure of TimesSelect is probably the least of their worries right now: Their ad revenue, especially in the Regional Media Group (all those little papers they own in places like Lakeland, Florida) and classifieds across the board, is having a bit of a summer slump.

Ad revenue for the New York Times Media Group decreased 2.9 percent from July 2006—which is actually not bad. Take the New England Media Group, where apparently the Nordstrom and Neiman-Marcus in the Natick Mall have yet to open and save the world: Ad revenues are down 4.9 percent compared to last July. The bad news came from the Regional Media Group, whose ad revenues are down a cringe-worthy 10.9 percent, "mainly because of softness in home furnishing, home improvement and department store advertising. Classified advertising revenues decreased due to weakness in real estate, help-wanted and automotive advertising." Hi, Craigslist!

All of those numbers are marginally better than the June results, when the Times was down 3 percent, the New England Media Group was down 11.8 percent, and the Regional Media Group was down 12.2 percent.

The bright spot, as always, is Internet revenue, which grew 19.3 percent over last July. But while impressive, the rate of Internet growth is also slowing. In the second quarter, Internet revenue grew 23.4 percent; in June, Internet revenues were up 22 percent over last year.

We assume that a lot of that growth came from the About Group, whose ad revenues rose 34.7 percent in July (About's ad revenues are bundled into the calculations for the Internet group, but also broken out separately, presumably because they're a spot of good news). It seems that as the months go by, the company is looking for other, mostly online-based, ways to make money to support its sinking newspaper business. Bill Keller doesn't work for free, ya know! But now his salary is being paid by stuff like "What Not to Play At Your Wedding."

New York Times Company: Press Releases [NYT Co.]

]]>
Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:20:35 EDT Doree Shafrir http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=290132&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Is 'Portfolio' Selling Like Its Hype? ]]> portsolioPorfolio has been on New York newsstands since April 16, and national newsstands since April 24. Which means it's not too early to ask: How's it selling?

The plan for Portfolio is 200,000 copies sold at the newsstand this year, according to a source at a competing publication (grain of salt taken!). This person also tells us that the first issue has, so far, sold 30,000 copies—although "these are like early returns in an election. The number could change." So 30K for this issue, when the next issue is due in August and monthly thereafter, according to the Times, might conceivably hit 200K. This source describes the situation this way: "I hear that Portfolio—given all the hype and hoopla—pretty much bombed at newsstand. Of course, when we all saw the issue we figured it would be weak, since it isn't newsstand tweaked AT ALL—like, say, the New Yorker—so obviously it's too early to declare victory. But Portfolio has got to be going into a major rethink."

A Barnes & Noble spokeswoman had this to say: "Portfolio has been on sale for less than a month, so it's really too soon to get a good read on it. However, some of our New York City stores have had great early sales." We like to read between the lines and wonder how the stores not in New York City did with it.

A Portfolio spokeswoman told us that it's "too early for any numbers." She added: "And just so you know, in general, we don't release any numbers." Sure. After all, why would a business magazine want to release anything like numbers?

]]>
Thu, 10 May 2007 13:42:48 EDT Doree Shafrir http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=259309&view=rss&microfeed=true