And of course, hidden in the Time’s self-backslap for “maintaining their circulation” for the previous several years is the fact that they had HUGE decreases in the NY area during that time period. They have (or, rather, HAD) managed to maintain their circulation numbers by selling more papers outside of their home area.

Such “long distance” sales might be marginally profitable, but they can’t be nearly as profitable as the local sales they replaced. Not only do they have to pay more to deliver them, but their advertising revenue has to suffer sooner or later.

Why would a NYC-based business pay to advertise in Philadelphia or farther away? Either they received a discount up-front, or have begun to stop/reduce advertising in the Times when their ad responses began to tank. Given the NYT management and it’s short-sightedness and fundemental dishonesty (in the linked piece, for example), IMHO the second possibility is far more likely.