More on Beantown

Jen: The Boston Phoenix's Adam Reilly writes that The Boston Globe union's NO vote is not so surprising considering that, among other things, New York Times Co. Chairman Arthur Sulzberger and CEO Janet Robinson didn't personally make a trip to the Globe to press for their case.

"It's certainly reasonable to wonder why the Times Co. didn't make more of an effort to win the hearts and minds of Guild members," Reilly pondered.

Reilly might be correct and if that is the case, it's truly disturbing. People should not forget this is a business, no matter the reasons why they signed on with the newspaper.  Not many businesses coddle and cajole their employees certainly when they are seeking cuts.  I know: it's a management vs. labor thing. But come on. The numbers should clearly spell out the New York Times' case.

Consider that the New England Media Group -- which consists largely of the Boston Globe --has been bleeding revenue for several quarters. Here is what the NYT reported for total revenue for the division. The decline is steady and readily apparent:

• Q1 2006 (-5.6%)
• Q2 2006 (-8.1%)
• Q3 2006 (-8.9%)
• Q4 2006 (-1.4%)

• Q1 2007 (-4.0%)
• Q2 2007 (-6.4%)
• Q3 2007 (-4.0%)
• Q4 2007 (-11.9%

• Q1 2008 (-9.3%)
• Q2 2008 (9.8%)
• Q3 2008 (12.3%)
• Q4 2008 (14.8%)

And finally:

• Q1 2009 (-20.6%)