“Super-shares” heh? I believe that’s what Mike Huckabee is counting on to win the Republican nomination.  All right, bad one.  Anyway:

I understand the logic of trying to shake up a company like CNET who doesn’t have a special voting structure, but will applying any pressure on NYT really make a dent?

While CNET and NYT seem as different as can be, they do share hostile shareholders in common.  Apart from that?

CNET has $400M in revenues and trades at a mere 3x revenues for a market cap of $1.2B.  Mind you, the company made $170M in net income in 2007, up from a puny $7M in 2006 (when it did $369M in annual revenues).

It’s worth noting that the NYT is trading at $2.82B, but its got revenues of $3.2B, so NYT is in fact trading at a discount to its sales, or 0.88x sales.

The NYT’s net income is $208M for 2007… or $38M more than CNET, even though NYT’s revenue is in fact 7x larger, or $2.42B more.

I know, we’re comparing apples with oranges. Where this bizarro script turns into overdrive is the fact that - according to the ever reliable and accurate comScore - the NYT is actually not only the most popular online property amongst all newspaper companies, with 48M uniques in the 11th slot amongst all media properties, but its - get this - ahead of CNET  who is 15th with 34M uniques.

CNET is all about tech-savvy audiences, so you’d think that they’d have an enormous audience online… but then again NYT being so mainstream and what not, I guess it makes sense for the newspaper giant to have more readers online, I guess.

What’s the point of this post?  I don’t know.  I wonder which company will actually be shaken up by year’s end.