But Condé, like other publishers, says Apple (AAPL) won’t actually talk to the company about its plans for the device, or even acknowledge that it has plans.*

Condé’s plan, meanwhile, is to create digital versions of its magazines that will work on all the upcoming tablets, using new software from Adobe (ADBE). Those tablets aren’t actually on the market yet, but the publisher says it’s confident that we’ll soon see multiple versions of machines featuring large color touchscreens and wireless connections.

So who’s going to make those gadgets? Condé Nast CEO Chuck Townsend says his company is working closely with Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) and that it has also been communicating its plans to Apple. But Townsend made a point of saying that Apple executives themselves refuse to acknowledge that they’re actually planning a tablet: “They’re not talking to anybody openly,” he says.

Adobe is creating a publishing tool for the new format, as well as magazine-reader software that may come pre-installed on the devices or may require a download. The software company says it is working exclusively with Condé now, but will offer its tools to other publishers next year.

[Important technical point several readers have brought up: Adobe says its new reader software will run using its AIR platform, which works on multiple operating systems, including Apple's desktop system. But neither AIR nor Adobe's flash software works on Apple's iPhone, so if the new mystery device runs on that operating system, there's a problem. I'm following up with Adobe to see what it has to say. UPDATE: Here's Adobe's response.]

Condé says its work with Adobe won’t preclude the company from joining the “Hulu for magazines” storefront/distribution joint venture it has been discussing with Time Warner’s (TWX) Time Inc. and other publishers. “Those discussions are ongoing and important and imminent,” Townsend says.

Okay. So what will Condé’s magazines look like once the tablets appear? The publisher has been showing a demo video to advertisers, industry executives and employees, and I’m trying to convince the company to show it to the rest of the world. (UPDATE: Here’s a partial, low-quality version of the video).

But until then, you can get a sense of it by checking out the publisher’s first attempt to port a magazine to the iPhone, which was released today at the iTunes App Store.

Like the iPhone version of GQ’s December issue, Condé says its tablet magazines will feature the same content found in the print versions, including original advertising, with the ability to view pages in their original form or in formats designed specifically for the device. They will also import multimedia content, like videos, and offer the ability to synch up with social networks and other Web sites.

Condé also thinks the business model for its tablet mags will mirror that of its iPhone app. The company intends to charge readers for each title, and it plans to convince the Audit Bureau of Circulations, the magazine industry’s standards board, that its online sales are equivalent to newsstand sales. That will allow Condé to charge advertisers the same rate as for print ads.

If all of this works, it’s a dream scenario for Condé and other publishers. The magazine industry gets to keep the revenue streams its print publications generate without having to make the “analog dollars for digital pennies” discount that the Web requires. Meanwhile, Condé gets to bask in the benefits of digital–lower distribution costs, more engagement with readers.

Or put another way: Publishers hope the new devices will repair all the value destruction the Web has wrought.

But all of this assumes that consumers, who’ve shown no inclination to pay for this stuff on the Web, will be willing to pay for it once it appears on devices no one owns yet. We’ll find out soon enough.

*One possible exception is the New York Times (NYT), where editor Bill Keller refuses to talk about possible talks with Steve Jobs and company.

The text in question: The passing reference to an “impending Apple slate” by New York Times (NYT) executive editor Bill Keller in an address to his staff. That’s it.

How is this considered news? Because while everyone in Appleland is positive Steve Jobs has a wonderous tablet computer up his sleeve, no one has actually seen one. But if the guy running America’s newspaper of record mentions it, then it must be true, right?

I had a different take on this: The Times, like every other big publisher, assumes Apple (AAPL) is working on a tablet and would like to figure out how to get its stuff onto the device. But I assumed that the Times, like every other big publisher, has had no contact with the famously secretive company about its plans.

That is, Keller could have said “the Apple slate or tablet or whatever that I believe the company is working on, but don’t know about firsthand.” But he whittled his thoughts down to three words–because he’s good at writing and words and stuff like that, the way you’d think the guy running America’s newspaper of record would be.

But just for kicks, I checked in with Keller yesterday to clarify: Does he actually know what Apple is up to? Or is he in the same boat as the rest of us?

His answer, delivered via a PR rep: “I ain’t sayin’.”

Okay, then!

Let’s start by noting that it’s possible that Keller is simply tweaking a reporter’s earnest query with a purposely delphic remark.

And even if Keller does know something about Apple’s plans, that doesn’t mean he knows much. Apple is famous for keeping its vendors and partners in the dark about its product plans until Steve Jobs unveils the devices onstage.

Still, if Apple has talked to Keller and the Times about its tablet in any way, that news will come as a surprise to other publishers I’ve talked to, who can’t get Apple to even wink or nudge about the device.

Earlier this month, for instance, I reported that executives at Time Warner’s (TWX) Time Inc. couldn’t get Apple “to even acknowledge to Time Inc. executives that it plans to produce a tablet device.”

Yesterday, I talked to an executive in charge of digital efforts at another big brand-name publisher who said the same thing. “You can’t even joke with them about a tablet,” said the executive. “They get very serious and cut the conversation short.”

Has Keller or any other Times executive had a longer conversation? I pinged Keller again last night for clarification, but haven’t heard back. If I do, I’ll update here.

In the meantime, if you want to read the tea leaves yourself, they show up around the 8:30 mark in this video, first published by the Nieman Journalism Lab:

Bill Keller speaks to the digital group at The New York Times from Nieman Journalism Lab on Vimeo.

Cheers to the paper for allowing itself to be savaged by “Daily Show” correspondent Jason Jones. I particularly enjoyed watching Executive Editor Bill Keller gamely explaining the news business while managing to get a dig into Google (GOOG), The Huffington Post and Drudge Report.

Crave more? Here’s an interview The Wall Street Journal’s new “Speakeasy” blog conducted with Jason Jones about the bit. Excerpt:

How’s the mood at the Times these days?

Edgy? No. It was really quite lovely. Let me tell you this, movies have severely misled me on what newspaper rooms should look like. There was no paper stacked six feet high on people’ desks. No one’s yelling stop the presses.

What are people up to over there?

I think people are using the Internet to look for new jobs. There are lots of great Web sites out there: Monster.com; Craigslist is great.

A decision could come by the end of June, the New York Observer reports, relaying information that executive editor Bill Keller passed on to his staff at a Wednesday meeting (no more tweeting!).

The short version: The Times is mulling two strategies. One would look a lot like the model used by the Financial Times whereby online readers get a certain amount of content for free but are required to pay up beyond that. The other would be akin to the one used by Web 1.0 pioneer Salon–a public radio/TV-style subscription/donation model that lets everyone read the site for free, but gives “members” access to extras.

The long version, from the Observer:

One includes a “meter system,” in which the reader can roam freely on the Web site until hitting a predetermined limit of word-count or pageviews, after which a meter will start running and the reader is charged for movement on the site thereafter. He warned staff at the meeting that this pay model would be “tricky.” If the word-count limit or page-view limit is set too low, it could chase readers off, compromising traffic and advertising revenue. He said the site presently makes “a lot, a lot of money” from digital advertising–though he wouldn’t specify how much–and that executives at the paper believe it is “substantially more” than The Wall Street Journal presently makes on a subscription-based pay model. On the other hand, he said, set these bars too high and there will be little improvement in revenue.

Mr. Keller described the second proposal as a “membership” system. In this model, readers pledge money to the site and are invited into a “New York Times community.” You write a check, you get a baseball cap or a T-shirt (if it’s like Channel Thirteen, a tote bag!), an invite to Times event, or perhaps, like The Economist, access to specialized content on the Web. He said he wouldn’t even be opposed to offering a donor access to a Page One editorial meeting as long as it doesn’t affect the paper competitively.

Recall that the Times was actually able to extract $10 million a year or so from its Times Select experiment in which it forced online readers to pay $50 a year to get access to opinion writers like Tom Friedman, Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd.

This was back in 2007, when online know-it-alls (um, like me) jeered the paper for “cutting itself off from the conversation,” etc., and promised that if it only opened itself up to the Web, big ad dollars would come. And actually, the Times has done reasonably well selling display ads–the paper’s online managers say that its pricing for premium ad inventory has held up even during the crash, though classifieds/help-wanted ads have evaporated.

The problem is that the paper now needs much more than $10 million a year to counter its disintegrating print business. Hard to see either of the two strategies described above panning out, but well worth trying.

But for better or worse, none of that matters to investors, who are trying to figure out what the company’s long-term prospects look like. In the near term, they look terrible.

In the first three months of this year, the New York Times Company (NYT) lost $74.5 million, or 34 cents a share once you factor out one-time charges, on revenue of $609 million. That’s worse than Wall Street’s low expectations of a five-cent loss on revenue of $630.8 million.

The reason, of course, is that the ad market is miserable in general, and even more so for newspapers. The company’s ad revenue was down 27 percent, notably worse than the awful 17.6 percent decline the Times recorded in the last quarter of 2008.

And as in the last quarter, former bright spots like the Internet business have now gone dark as well: Internet revenue was down 5.6 percent, Internet ad sales declined 6.1 percent, and revenue at the Times’s About.com unit dropped 4.7 percent.

Expect more of the same for the second quarter of this year, warns CEO Janet Robinson: “At this time, and it is early in the quarter, we believe the rate of decline in ad revenues in the second quarter will be similar to that of the first.”

The Times has been trimming costs (via salary cuts and layoffs) and has bought itself a bit of breathing room by getting rid of its dividend, taking on a very expensive loan from Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim and selling off assets like its Manhattan headquarters. It still has some moves it can make–it is trying to unload its stake in the Boston Red Sox and to find a buyer for the Boston Globe.

But at some point it’s going to have find a way to start selling more ads again. Because awards alone won’t save the paper–Pulitzers can’t even guarantee their winners’ continued employment.

The Times has stopped providing monthly revenue updates, but it has been pretty good about providing detail via its earnings calls. I’ll be on the road during today’s 11 a.m. call, but will check the transcript and get back to you later with the most interesting nuggets.

Last year, New York Times (NYT) executive editor Bill Keller told the newspaper’s newsroom that he would try very hard to not fire any of them, despite the paper’s worsening financial health. But he didn’t say anything about pay cuts.

The Times today announced that it would be cutting salaries of its nonunion employees from 2.5 percent to 5 percent and that it would be asking for “similar” cuts from its unionized newsroom employees “in a spirit of shared sacrifice and as a way to otherwise avoid layoffs in the newsroom.”

Translation: Cut your salaries or we’ll cut your jobs.

In addition, the Times has canned 100 people from the paper’s business operations. The sweetener: Those who get their salaries slashed also get extra vacation days.

The Times hasn’t officially unveiled its request/demand for givebacks from its unionized newsroom, but plans to do so this afternoon.

Here’s the internal memo:

Dear Colleagues,

As you know, the global economic crisis is taking its toll on a broad range of businesses and sectors, here in the U.S. and around the world. We have reported in our own newspapers and on our own Web sites that the economy is likely to continue struggling throughout this year and possibly longer.

Given this economic outlook and the changes occurring in the media business, we, regrettably, must take even more steps to lower costs. We have been, and continue to, reorganize and reduce our staff, which means we are saying goodbye to many of our close colleagues. Now, in addition, we are lowering salaries through the end of this year for all remaining nonunion employees and, in exchange, providing additional time off. We plan to approach the Newspaper Guild in New York to ask for its participation in the program and to continue working with our unions in Boston and our other locations on lowering our costs, including wage reductions.

The salaries of all employees at The New York Times Media Group (with the exception of the IHT, which is working on other cost reduction measures), The Boston Globe, Boston.com and Corporate in New York will be rolled back by 5%, starting this April, and these employees will receive 10 additional days off to use before the end of the year.

At the About Group, Baseline, Globe Direct, International Media Concepts, Regional Media Group, Shared Services Center and Worcester Telegram & Gazette, the approach is similar, with salaries being rolled back by 2.5% with five additional days off. We made the distinction between the two groups by taking into account location and other factors. Next year, we plan to return salaries to their current levels. Of course, such a decision depends on the state of our business.

Many of you will have questions about these actions. Your manager or department head has been briefed with more details and is your best source of information.

This was a very difficult decision to make. The environment we are in is the toughest we have seen in our years in business. Across our Company, you and your colleagues have worked hard to introduce innovative products and services, reduce expenses and improve productivity. We are deeply grateful for your efforts and proud of your achievements. As we take these painful steps together, we remain confident that our great Company will keep moving forward to better times.

Sincerely,

Arthur & Janet

Makes sense, given that the ad-supported model the paper has been depending on isn’t working. Figuring out a paid model that will work will be challenging, but it’s certainly worth experimenting with. For more details, see PaidContent’s useful summary.

One other related point: Keller reiterates that the Times has a small but extant business on its hands via Amazon’s (AMZN) Kindle: For $14 a month, e-book readers can get a digital version of the paper delivered daily to their device.

I played with the Kindle for some time last fall and while I appreciate a lot about it, I can’t see why you’d pay $168 a year to read the Times on it: For one thing, the version that Kindle owners see is facsimile of the daily paper, which means it’s not updated with breaking news, even though the device has a wireless connection. Another negative–you can get the “live,” updated version of the online paper for free via the Kindle’s (admittedly crude) Web browser.

But people do like it, Keller says. How many? He won’t say, just that the business is “modest” (this also applies to the paper’s very, very niche Times Reader product). One hint: It’s generating much less than $10 million a year, which Keller describes wistfully as “real money” that the paper’s previous attempt at a subscription service generated.

Maybe those numbers get more significant as the Kindle becomes more popular: Citigroup (C) predicts the device will be a $1.2 billion business by next year alone. But I think the paper is going to have to find something more compelling to offer than a digitized version of last night’s news if it wants to charge a premium. I’m just not sure that offer should be.

Meanwhile Keller himself has a good perspective on it: “So some people are paying for The Times online. Just not enough of them. So far.”

It is hard to call this a layoff since I’m not an employee of the Times and I will likely still contribute to the paper occasionally. Yet I have been feeling a lot like someone who has been laid off. For starters, I have tried to build a narrative based on the little information that was shared with me by my editors, who have told me they were nearly as surprised as I was about this decision. As in a layoff, the decision was made in response to the economic realities of the media industry, which is a polite way of saying that newspapers are in difficult financial shape.”

The Times (NYT) had a round of layoffs/buyouts earlier in the year, but last month Executive Editor Bill Keller told his troops he would try very hard not to cut anyone else. It seems increasingly clear that Keller will struggle to make good on that pledge, given the Times’s deteriorating  financial picture. But since Alboher wasn’t an actual employee, her canning won’t technically count as a layoff–it just feels like one to her.

The Times has been ramping up its use of columnist/bloggers over the past year, and has brought most of them on as contract workers. I’ve asked the paper if it has made other columnist/blogger cuts recently; no response yet. But it hasn’t made cut any other of its columnist/bloggers, says the NYT’s Catherine Mathis.

As an aside, news of Alboher’s demise reached me via The NYTPicker, which appears to be a month-old blog written by someone who loves the Times so much that they scour the paper each day to write something nasty about it. It’s a sort-of heir to SmarterTimes.com, a now-defunct site that existed solely to point out liberal bias at the paper (its operator, Ira Stoll, moved on to run the now-defunct New York Sun).

Does that sound like something that appeals to you? If so, be warned: NYTPicker won’t be posting for next few days, since its anonymous operator will be traveling to see their folks, who “still subsist on dial-up Internet service.”

Here’s a nice summation of the state of newspapers today: A pep talk to a newspaper’s staff now consists of a pledge not to fire said staff.

That’s what New York Times (NYT) Executive Editor Bill Keller (pictured here) told his charges yesterday, and even then he couldn’t make the promise ironclad.

The New York Observer has the prepared text of remarks Keller delivered to the paper’s editorial workers yesterday.

There’s a lot of back-slapping for the NYT’s coverage of the financial meltdown and some other attaboys (as well as some references to competition from News Corp.’s Wall Street Journal (NWS). (News Corp., owner of Dow Jones and The Wall Street Journal, is also the owner this Web site.)

But here’s the part the staff is most interested in:

A deep, sustained recession will mean the search for savings and the quest for new revenues continues, that there will be no luxuries and little comfort. It will mean, as the company announced last week, that for management there will be some cuts in future pension benefits and retiree medical insurance. … The tough business climate has already meant the consolidation of sections to save printing costs. It will mean, I’m sure, that our hiring is even more selective than before. It will mean some new projects get delayed. It may mean we get more exotic and garish species of advertisements.

What it will NOT mean, I most fervently hope, is a surrender to the short-sighted, serial staff cuts that have hollowed out some of the nation’s great news organizations. There are no guarantees, especially since we have such limited visibility into the future. But as of now, even with the growing misery of the global economy, our aim is to move forward without another wave of newsroom buyouts or layoffs. If I learn that such a staff reduction is on the table, I will tell you, and I will tell you promptly.”

It’d be nice for the paper’s remaining workers if Keller could be firmer with a no-layoff pledge, but he’s not in a position to do that because the company’s revenue, profits and stock price are all in a multiyear slide.

Last week, on the same day the paper’s credit rating was cut to junk status, the company said it would consider cutting its dividend in order to conserve cash.