That has to be unnerving, but I can at least offer a little bit of comfort: The worst-case scenario the employees would be facing had they been purchased by private equity firm ZelnickMedia, which was also bidding for the publication.

The short version: Almost everybody gets fired.

Here’s the longer version of the plan, provided to me by a person familiar with ZelnickMedia’s bid. It sounds like a plausible idea for a PE group that specializes in turning around distressed assets–and a chilling one for anybody who draws a paycheck at BusinessWeek:

• Wind down BusinessWeek’s print business “as profitably as possible”–the company would have to honor existing subscriptions and could still sell ads in the magazine. But the focus would be on building up BusinessWeek’s Web site, which has a decent-sized footprint, though not a huge one.
• Dump almost all of the company’s newsgathering staff and outsource most of that work to Thomson Reuters (TRI).
• Employ a small handful of editorial employees–perhaps 20, down from the 200-plus who are there now. Some of them would run a Huffington Post-style aggregation site that produces no original content, and some more expensive hires would produce a smattering of high-quality reporting and writing designed to burnish/sustain the BusinessWeek brand. “Just to give it uniqueness and sizzle,” my source tells me.
• Dump most of the existing business side, as well, but overhaul and bulk up the sales force.

The insult-to-injury kicker: Under ZelnickMedia’s proposal, the buyer wouldn’t pay a dime for the publication it intended to rebuild. Instead, McGraw-Hill would pay the fund to take the publication off its hands. If that sounds implausible, consider that McGraw-Hill just announced that it will save up to $25 million next year by not owning the title.

Given the above terms, it’s easy enough to see why McGraw-Hill ended up going with Bloomberg. For starters, the winning bidder actually paid cash for the magazine, and McGraw-Hill will end up netting a $5.9 million gain, after taxes, on the deal.

Also important: McGraw-Hill won’t have to anguish as it watches one of its flagship properties get dismantled.

So what will happen to BusinessWeek now that Bloomberg owns it? Nothing nearly so drastic, at least in the short term. For now, Bloomberg is talking about bulking up the title, not shredding it, so that’s a good sign for both employees and readers.

Alas, Bloomberg can’t take on all of the magazine employees looking for jobs, and that pool is only going to get bigger.

Forbes slashed deep into its staff this week, and next week Time Warner’s (TWX) Time Inc. will lay out some of its layoff goals. I’ve heard Time Inc. employees refer to layoff plans as “tree-trimming” or “surgical,” but I think the trimming will feel much blunter to the folks who lose their jobs. The publisher’s cost-cutting plans include hundreds of layoffs–something likely similar to the cuts the publisher went through last year, I’m told.

The New York Post’s Keith Kelly reports today that Time’s News and Finance unit, which includes Time, Fortune and Sports Illustrated, will be particularly hard hit, and I’ve confirmed that myself.

UPDATE: No surprise here: BusinessWeek President Keith Fox is stepping down. Mild surprise: He’s staying on at McGraw-Hill. Here’s his memo:

When we announced that McGraw-Hill was exploring strategic options for BusinessWeek, I promised to communicate with you as openly and often as I could. In this spirit, I wanted each of you to know that I will be remaining with McGraw-Hill after the deal with Bloomberg is closed. I will continue to play a role in the integration post-close and plan to take on a new role at McGraw-Hill in 2010.

During this process, our collective goal was to find the best buyer for BusinessWeek. I am proud that I played a role in ensuring that BusinessWeek has a new home at Bloomberg, where it will thrive under the leadership of Norman Pearlstine. I am committed to the transition and helping in any way that I can.

It’s been a privilege to be the President of BusinessWeek. I thank Terry McGraw for his confidence and trust in me and Glenn Goldberg for his support, direction, clarity, and sense of humor. I’ve also been a member of an amazing team which has navigated the transformation of the media environment with agility, focus, passion, and integrity.

The team–Steve Adler, Jessica Sibley, Tania Secor, Linda Brennan, Roger Neal, and Carl Fischer–is the best in the industry. Like BusinessWeek, they have bright futures ahead of them. I will miss the daily interaction, but I am wiser (and a little grayer) because of their collaborative spirit and desire to make BusinessWeek the global leader in business that it is today.

I also have a special thanks to Patricia Hipplewith, my assistant, who juggled my calendar, protected me from solicitors, and kept me on schedule and well fed! She is the personification of commitment and integrity.

I am humbled by BusinessWeek’s 80-year history. Thank you for allowing me to play a small part in it.

Keith

The company’s organic growth–sales after netting out acquisitions and currency fluctuations–dropped 14.2 percent, just barely better than the 14.5 percent it posted the previous quarter.

That is “less sequential progress in the quarter than we hope to see,” CEO Michael Roth deadpanned. On the plus side, his agencies are having nice chats:

However, it’s fair to say that the tone of our conversations with clients concerning the economy is improving. However, we’ve not seen this yet converted to consistent commitments to new or existing projects. Therefore, it looks as if the pace of the recovery will be gradual and that significantly improving organic revenue performance for the whole of 2009 compared to the first nine months performance will be challenging.

In the end, Roth gave more or less the same report that we’ve seen most other places that aren’t in the search ad business dominated by Google (GOOG): He argued that “the worst is over,” but he thinks any significant improvement won’t show up until 2010.

Alas, that kind of muted hopefulness isn’t nearly enough to save any jobs during this fall’s media layoff season, which kicked off this week as my former employers at Forbes took an ax–yet again–to that company’s payroll. On the schedule: Cuts at the New York Times (NYT), Time Warner’s (TWX) Time Inc. and at Bloomberg’s newly acquired BusinessWeek.

That’s the high end of the range Bloomberg will be paying for BusinessWeek, reports BusinessWeek, which has done an excellent job of covering its sale. One important note to make about the price: Those liabilities could total up to $32 million, although it’s not clear whether Bloomberg will assume all of them.

Can’t call this one a surprise, as Bloomberg has reportedly been the lead bidder for some time now. BusinessWeek employees spent most of the day waiting for an announcement to that effect, and finally heard one, via Bloomberg’s wire service, shortly after 5 pm EDT.

Shortly after, BusinessWeek Editor Stephen J. Adler gathered his troops for an informal meeting to discuss the news and to discuss some blocking and tackling: No news on rumored (and expected) layoffs. But he did tell staffers that those who are cut after the deal closes later this year will receive the same severance package they would have gotten if they were still employed by McGraw-Hill (MHP), the magazine’s parent company.

There most certainly will be cuts: McGraw-Hill is selling the 80-year-old magazine because it’s a money pit that was losing between $20 million and $40 million a year, depending on your accounting. And the publisher’s bankers promoted a layoff plan as part of the sales process.

What exactly deep-pocketed Bloomberg intends to do with the publication, however, is unclear. The company, which makes its money renting its namesake terminals to Wall Street traders, is thought to be running its magazine and TV news operations at a loss as it tries to grab a footprint in consumer media. It may ultimately be willing to run BusinessWeek at a loss for a while, as well.

And now a tiny bit of context: At the beginning of this year, there were four major business magazines. Now one, Condé Nast’s Portfolio, has been shut down and another sold at a fire-sale price. Meanwhile, my former colleagues at Forbes expect to hear about yet another restructuring round in the near future. And while Time Warner (TWX) CEO Jeff Bewkes was careful to list Fortune magazine among the core assets at his company’s Time Inc. unit at an industry event today, that can’t assure the queasy souls who work there.

Here’s the memo to BusinessWeek staff from the magazine’s BusinessWeek publisher, Keith Fox:

All,

Moments ago, McGraw-Hill announced that Bloomberg L.P. has agreed to acquire BusinessWeek. This is exciting news on many levels. Joining forces with another of the world’s leading news organizations enhances BusinessWeek’s ability to further serve our global audience and our valued customers. And Bloomberg will gain a powerful brand with a history of editorial excellence and strong reach among business professionals.

While the ink is barely dry and the long-term plans are being worked out, we do know that Bloomberg is committed to and values our brand, our editorial integrity, and our ability to drive advertising, circulation, and new digital revenue.

BusinessWeek will strengthen Bloomberg’s online, television and mobile products and creates an opportunity for Bloomberg News to reach decision makers in the c-suite. Online, BusinessWeek.com and Bloomberg.com will have more unique visitors than any non-portal business and financial site. In addition, Bloomberg expects to build television content around the powerful BusinessWeek brand and our world-class journalists.

I am tremendously proud of the work all of you have done in the past few months. Despite the uncertainty, we have continued to produce first-class products for our readers and advertisers, and I want to thank you deeply for your efforts. I also want to thank Steve Adler, Jessica Sibley, Tania Secor, Roger Neal, and Linda Brennan, for their extraordinary ability to personify the best of BusinessWeek during the deal process while leading their respective organizations.

I know that while this announcement answers some of the questions you’ve been asking over the past few months, it raises others. The sale is expected to close by the end of the year and we will be working on transition plans in the coming weeks. I can tell you that all BusinessWeek staffers will remain employees of The McGraw-Hill Companies until the transaction closes, and that it will be business as usual–producing the magazine and the website, and serving our advertisers–through the close. We will give you more details when we can.

We’ll be holding a town hall meeting later today at 5:45 EST, after which a Q&A will be provided to all employees; you will receive more details shortly. A call for the Asia teams will be scheduled shortly.

Again, I want to thank you all for your professionalism and dedication during a challenging time. I look forward to working with you on the promising next chapter in BusinessWeek’s history.

Keith

Today’s example doesn’t come from a magazine per se, but from the company’s digital group, which let go of “more than” 15 people, MediaWeek reports.

You should see a trickle of these reports in the weeks to come, and from other publishers as well: Employees at Time Warner’s (TWX) Time Inc., for example, are bracing for cuts this fall, or in early 2010, and my former colleagues at Forbes expect to hear about another set of layoffs in the next week or so. And whoever wins the bidding for BusinessWeek will almost certainly take an ax to that company’s payroll.

J Moses, who co-founded the company in 1998, left in June, as did Michael McCracken, his longtime COO. The company is currently being run by Hearst Interactive president Ken Bronfin.

I’ve heard conflicting reports about the impetus behind Moses’s departure. It’s certainly not unusual for top executives to leave a company within a couple of years of an acquisition.

But UGO, which competes for eyeballs and ad dollars with heavyweights like CBS’s (CBS) GameSpot and News Corp.’s (NWS) IGN, seems to have had trouble moving the needle since magazine giant Hearst picked it up: Web measurement service comScore (SCOR) says UGO’s traffic has bounced around in the 10 million to 12 million unique visitors per month range–even after it acquired rival site 1up.com from Ziff Davis Gaming Group last January (click chart to enlarge).
I’ve reached out to Moses, but haven’t heard back. Here’s Hearst’s description of what happened:

Moses told UGO employees at a meeting at UGO on June 16 that after two years, he was leaving the company, having fulfilled his duties there.  At the meeting, we thanked him for his dedication to the company and announced that we would begin conducting a search for a replacement. We are committed to the future growth of UGO and believe in its future success. Ken Bronfin, president, Hearst Interactive Media, and his team are managing the company in the interim.

At the time of the Hearst deal, UGO was generating Ebitda of $6 million on revenue of $30 million, according to this Forbes story.

There’s nothing newsworthy in this memo, sent out last week in the wake of Forbes.com CEO Jim Spanfeller’s departure. There’s no staff-shuffling detailed, and no grand strategy revealed. It’s really not much more than a “keep your head up.” But things are dour enough these days that even that counts for something, I think.

The sun has risen. Another day. We kick on. Our audience knows little and probably cares less about our internal organization. What they do care about is that we continue to serve them with indispensable journalism in that forthright, robust way that is our hallmark.

The late Jim Michaels liked to say that a Forbes story made readers richer or smarter. Smarter, certainly, about the world around them and understanding the choices they’ll be facing; smarter at running their business and career; smarter at investing, and smarter at enjoying the rewards of success. But a Forbes story can also make readers richer in spirit, heart or mind. Richer/smarter remains a good lens to look through at all we do.

We celebrate entrepreneurism all the time, and we should look for that same spirit in ourselves. You don’t need me to tell you that our industry is changing beyond all recognition, both in its forms and in the business models that pay for it.

We now compete for the time of busy people with a whole range of new competitors with an equally broad range of journalistic standards, approaches and ways of paying for what they do. Now more than ever, we need to be flexible and open to how we think about our journalism, and to question past assumptions about how we work — holding fast to our core principles and never putting the trust our audience has in us and our brand at risk — but being ready to experiment with how we create and distribute our journalism.

Not every one of those experiments will work. We shall have to be disciplined in measuring their relevance and usefulness to our audience, and bury our losers while cultivating our winners.

As at every publication, there are serious constraints now on our resources, but there are no restrictions on our imagination, enthusiasm or editorial entrepreneurship beyond those we impose on ourselves. We all still have to do our day jobs, make sure our audience is served in the most forthright way we know how with great journalism, and help support a business underneath it all to pay our salaries.

I learned long ago that there is nothing like robust cash flow to support robust journalism. We shall still have to set priorities for what we can take on, but I am sure I speak for [Forbes magazine editor] Bill [Baldwin] and all our senior colleagues when I commit to do all I humanly can to get as many of the best of your new ideas in front of our audience as we can.

We are a publication across all our media for people in business, rather than a business publication, which lets us range wide in what we cover an how. We now have a broad audience comprised of many overlapping sub-audiences, but all seeking in various ways that Forbesian voice, insight and timely wisdom that we offer.

We need to stay relevant to every one in a changing and challenging world. So let’s kick on with vigor and imagination to make as large an audience as we can richer and smarter however we can. ‘Cos that is what we do. And our audiences deserve no less.

[Image credit: Eye of einstein]

Spanfeller’s departure comes amid a flurry of bad news for finance publications. In April, Condé Nast pulled the plug on Portfolio, its business magazine and Web site, after a very expensive two-year run. Earlier this week, publisher McGraw-Hill (MHP) announced that it was shopping BusinessWeek, and observers are floating the notion that the company may end up giving the magazine away to anyone who wants to take on its annual losses.

Time Warner’s (TWX) Fortune magazine has also been battered by the recession, which has been particularly hard on the finance, auto and luxury-good companies that business publications have traditionally relied upon. And Forbes itself has gone through multiple rounds of layoffs since last fall.

In a memo to the company’s employees, Forbes CEO Steve Forbes praised Spanfeller for building out the company’s Web property, which says it receives 18 million unique visitors a month.In the aftermath of the dot.com crash, Spanfeller helped turn Forbes.com, which the family-owned company was close to shutting down, into a powerhouse.

But Forbes’s plan to take the Web property public earlier in the decade never panned out. And once Forbes sold a 40 percent stake to private equity investors Elevation Partners three years ago, plenty of Forbes employees, including me, had speculated that Spanfeller would look for a job that promised a big payout. That said, it wasn’t that long ago that Spanfeller was the victor in a power struggle with Jim Berrien, the former publisher of the Forbes print edition.

The news was first reported by AOL’s Daily Finance. Here’s the company memo from CEO Steve Forbes:

To: All Hands

From Steve Forbes

July 16, 2009

Jim Spanfeller, President and CEO of Forbes.com has decided to step down from leading our website after nine years. In the entrepreneurial spirit that Forbes has always championed, Jim will be setting up his own media management company.

Describing his future plans Jim said, “The world of media has changed rapidly in the past 10 years and the velocity of the change promises only to increase going forward. I’ve had a great run at Forbes and have been deeply involved in the breakthroughs and transformations between traditional and digital media.  Now I see a huge opportunity to have my own media management business that will help other traditional media companies make the most of their enormous prospects in digital venues, taking all I have learned here in the past decade and applying on a wider horizon. Forbes.com has truly been a truly wonderful ride and I am deeply in debt to the Forbes family for letting me be a part of it.”

Jim has done a monumental job of bringing Forbes.com to the lead position in business websites, and secured Forbes.com as the must visit site for not only global business leaders but also anyone interested in the finest business reporting and analysis available. At present Forbes.com has 18 million unique visitors a month.

Along the way, Jim has overseen the development and growth of Forbes Digital, which includes Forbes.com, ForbesTraveler.com, Investopedia.com, RealClearPolitics.com, RealClearMarkets.com, Real Clear Sports, and Forbes Business and Finance Blog Network, which together reach 40 million unique visitors a month.

This immense growth on the digital side of the business was spearheaded, pursed, and led by Jim with enormous success. The digital world is still uncharted with few rules, and Jim’s intellect, creativity, and business acumen helped bring us our number one position. For this the Forbes family is very grateful and we wish him all the success in his future plans.

Since Elevation Partners partnered with Forbes three years ago, Jim has worked very closely with them on the growth and development and vision for Forbes.com.  Commenting on Jim’s departure, Roger McNamee of Elevation said, “Jim did a fantastic job leading Forbes.com. In an era when competitors feared it, Jim embraced and evangelized the internet, with huge benefits to Forbes and its audiences. We are grateful for his contributions over the past nine years.”

Jim will be staying through a transition period at least through Labor Day. Please join me and my brothers in wishing Jim all the best in the future, which he deserves.

Here’s the memo Forbes distributed to his staff this afternoon:

Various media outlets today noted that Roger McNamee of Elevation Partners has stepped off the Forbes Media board and that this portends an imminent round of additional cuts. It does not.

Cutting costs has been necessary at Forbes and virtually every other company in response to the unprecedented economic downturn. We are doing what is necessary for Forbes to get through these difficult times. It is critical to remember, however, that while coping with current conditions, we are also pursuing new initiatives, the latest being ForbesWoman. We are actively examining a number of other new ventures.

Forbes continues to outperform its competitors. The brand is stronger today worldwide than ever before. In a few days I am going to India for the launch of Forbes India, our eleventh local edition and the first of its kind in India. No other business brand has a larger worldwide audience offline and online. At 5.4 million, readership of Forbes Magazine itself is at an all-time high, and Forbes Digital attracts some 40 million unique visitors each month.

Let us also remember that in 2001-2002 in the aftermath of the tech bubble bursting, and particularly after 9/11, magazine advertising plunged. We had to take many painful steps at that time as well. There were many who said we should shut down the then money-losing Forbes.com. We did not, and it went on to great success. Now, just as then, we are contending with crisis but also planting seeds of our future success.

As for the Forbes Media board, several Elevation partners have rotated on it. Bret Pearlman has been involved from day one.  And Roger McNamee is still very much engaged with the company, particularly web strategy and technology.

We fully understand the concerns that the present difficult environment causes. We want to thank everyone for their hard work. We profoundly believe that the steps being taken, not only short-term painful ones, but also new growth initiatives, will make Forbes stronger than ever when economic recovery comes.

Time Warner’s AOL can spin positive news out of the miserable results it offered up today: Our wounds are self-inflicted, and we can heal them.

But Ann Moore, who runs Time Warner’s Time Inc. publishing business, will have a tougher time selling that story to investors. Her magazine company performed as badly as the rest of the industry did in the last quarter.

Time Inc. saw ad revenue drop 30 percent in the first three months of 2009, which corresponds roughly to the 26 percent drop in ad pages the overall magazine business recorded during the same time.

That drop is much worse than industry executives had braced for last fall when nearly every publishing company, Time Inc. included, made a round of layoffs. And as this quarter’s miserable numbers trickled in, publishers from Forbes to Condé Nast have made a second round of cuts to adjust to the new reality.

Time Inc. hasn’t done so, or at least not in a significant manner. But it may have to. One suggestion, offered to me by a Time Warner (TWX) executive yesterday: “Time has way too many magazines. They should fix that.”

For the record, Time Inc. has “more than 115 titles” world-wide.

Portfolio’s ad pages were down more than 60 percent in the first quarter of 2009. If you account for the magazine’s decreased frequency–it published two issues in the first free months of the year, down down from three last year–that works out to be a 40 percent drop. Here’s how its peers performed during the same period, via the Magazine Publishers of America:

McGraw-Hill’s (MHP) BusinessWeek: Down 39.8 percent

Time Warner’s (TWX) Fortune: Down 26.3 percent

Privately held Forbes: Down 15 percent

Bear in mind that the revenue numbers for each title are likely down much more dramatically. That’s because the two categories of advertisers that the business magazines have depended on to fill their pages–financial services and autos–have all received extra-vicious beatings from the economy since last summer. So the publishers are particularly vulnerable to rate card pressure. And I’m told that luxury and travel advertisers, which had stayed relatively strong through the end of 2008, fell off dramatically this year. So that can’t be good.

My contribution to the aforementioned bone-picking: Like everyone else who wrote about Portfolio yesterday, I mentioned that the magazine and Web site had reportedly been launched with a budget of $100 million or more. But let’s be clear–that’s $100 million (or more), to be spent over a five-year period.

Portfolio was around for two years, and was gestating for a year before that, and a bunch of the budget was likely spent up front. So Condé Nast likely did burn through a very large pile of cash–the New York Times’s David Carr reports that the magazine spent $30,000 last fall to “procure the services of a real elephant to menace a model at a photo shoot.” And I’d love to know what the total actually was (for the record, I asked, and no one will tell me). But it’s a stretch to think Condé Nast actually burned through nine figures on this one.

The magazine’s May issue, which is out now, will be its last. The Web site will be shuttered “in the second quarter,” the company says.

Portfolio has had its doubters even prior to its launch in 2007. Long before the advertising market cratered, critics worried that the market couldn’t support a fourth business magazine to compete with Forbes, Time Warner’s (TWX ) Fortune and McGraw-Hill’s (MHP) BusinessWeek; they also marveled at the reported $100 million budget that Condé Nast had committed to the launch.

No telling whether that bet would have paid off in a healthier market for the high-end advertising that business magazines thrive on. (But likely not: “Condé Nast made a classic mistake of spotting a consumer magazine ‘opportunity’ based on advertising and demographic considerations, not actual reader demand,” as BusinessWeek’s Jon Fine puts it). But the current market is as bad as it could get: In the first three months of 2009, magazine ad pages declined more than 25 percent, according to an industry trade group, and Portfolio’s pages dropped by more than 60 percent. Some of that drop stems from the magazine’s move to a 10-issue-a-year schedule, down from 12 a year.

But Portfolio has been suffering for quite some time. Last fall, the magazine laid off a good portion of its staff and turned its Web site into a skeleton operation. And parent Condé Nast, which also made a round of layoffs last fall, has continued to cut back this year, eliminating perks, staff and titles throughout the company. In March CEO Chuck Townsend sent out a memo warning that “as the downturn extends, we have to make additional difficult decisions to manage costs and ensure our financial well-being.”

Here’s the full statement from Carey:

Earlier today, Condé Nast announced, quite regrettably, that it is pulling back from its investment in Portfolio.

For this high-profile, 21-issue launch, the recession has helped and hurt the brand. While the unprecedented nature of these times has made business and the economy the main topic of conversation, it has also led to high levels of uncertainty and a tremendous reduction in ad spend in the five key sectors Portfolio’s business model depends on.

The company is deeply grateful to Portfolio’s readers and for the broad support of marketers and executives all around the country.

And here’s the beginning of the magazine’s obituary from soon-to-be-unemployed Portfolio.com media writer Jeff Bercovici:

For nearly two years I’ve been covering the media industry’s bad news on this blog, including some that’s hit very close to home. Now it hits closer still: Condé Nast Portfolio is closing.

Our editor in chief, Joanne Lipman, just broke the news to staff, saying the decision had been made “because of financial reasons at Advance,” Condé Nast’s parent company. “It’s not anything that the company wanted to do.” She said she was informed by Condé Nast chairman S.I. Newhouse Jr. this morning of the decision.

And here’s the press release:

Condé Nast will cease publication of Portfolio effective with its May issue and Portfolio.com will close in the second quarter of the year, it was announced today by Charles H. Townsend, President and CEO of Condé Nast.

“The pressures and realities of the continuous deep economic slump have lowered Portfolio’s revenue projections below what is needed to continue publication,” Mr. Townsend said. “Portfolio was an ambitious and innovative magazine and website, and we were proud to publish them. The challenges facing this launch however proved too great. Joanne Lipman is an extraordinarily skillful editor and William Li is a very talented publisher. We thank them and their staffs for their tremendous efforts. It is unfortunate we were unable to give Portfolio the time needed to fully mature.”

Portfolio and Portfolio.com were launched in May 2007. The magazine has published 21 issues since its launch. The magazine received a National Magazine Award in 2008 and has been nominated for multiple awards since.

Condé Nast Publications, a unit of Advance Publications, includes consumer magazines, Condé Nast Digital, the Fairchild Fashion Group, the Condé Nast Media Group, and the Shared Services Centers.

It is, as Forbes notes, “a rare look at Jobs in his own words.”

Alas, Steve Jobs in his own words–at least when he’s being deposed in an options-backdating lawsuit–is mind-numbingly boring. “Just like us!” as they say in the celebrity gossip magazines.

Forbes has taken what it says are the highlights of the transcript and assembled them into an online slideshow, but the best stuff appears to be this bit, where Jobs explains why he asked his board for a giant options grant:

At some point in 2001 Jobs went to his board and asked for a big option grant. In the deposition Jobs said he had simply wanted a pat on the back. “It wasn’t so much about the money,” The Forbes 400 member told an SEC lawyer. “Everybody likes to be recognized by his peers. … I felt that the board wasn’t really doing the same with me.” With all of his prior stock options underwater from the dot-com bust, “I just felt like there is nobody looking out for me here, you know. … So I wanted them to do something, and so we talked about it. … I thought I was doing a pretty good job.”

Wouldn’t it have been nice, he was thinking, if the board had come to him and said, “‘Steve, we got this new grant for you,’ without me having to suggest anything or be involved in anything or negotiate anything. … It would have made me feel better at the time.”

Takeaway: Even billionaires need a back-pat occasionally. But if you’re looking for insight into the psyche of the world’s most famous business leader, that’s about all you’re getting here.

I haven’t seen the deposition myself, so it’s possible that there are other great nuggets buried in the 119 pages, and that Forbes is hoarding them in order to wring out as many stories as possible.

Then again, 119 pages of boredom is exactly what Jobs was trying to produce here in order to avoid further legal trouble with the SEC. Bad for headline writers and voyeurs. Good for him.

Forbes Media has begun a new round of layoffs and will let go of more than 50 people on its editorial and business teams, I’m told. The cuts are roughly proportional to the ones the business publication made in November and January when it consolidated its Web and magazine operations.

During the last round of cuts, Forbes attributed at least some of the layoffs to the integration of the two staffs. This time around, there can’t be any reason beyond the fact that the miserable economy has been especially rough on magazines in general and business titles specifically.

I’ve asked Forbes officials for details and will update if I get any. (Disclosure: I’m a former Forbes employee.) UPDATE: The layoffs took two days, but appear to be over. Employees who kept their jobs will see pay cuts in the form of mandatory unpaid furloughs, and higher-paid employees will get additional pay cuts.

The question for the rest of the industry: How many other publishers will have to make a second round of cuts themselves? Condé Nast CEO Chuck Townsend has already warned his troops about cost cuts that will likely include layoffs; earlier this month Rodale shuttered its Best Life title. Both publishers also made cuts last fall.

Unheard from so far: Time Warner’s (TWX) Time Inc., which cut about 600 positions last fall. Those layoffs–roughly six percent of the publisher’s payroll–were larger than anything Time had experienced before. So far that seems to have been enough to weather the storm.

As I noted before, Broad is a billionaire who can afford to bail out the paper if he really wants to. But it has become harder for him than it would have six months ago.

Forbes’s newest billionaire ranking pegs his net work at $5.2 billion, down $1.5 billion from last September.

But who’s going to pony up? I will, says Eli Broad.

The Los Angeles billionaire, who made his money in the home-building and insurance businesses, thought about buying his hometown Los Angeles Times a couple of years ago. But Sam Zell ended up taking the paper as part of his ill-fated Tribune Co. purchase in 2007.

Now that Tribune is in Chapter 11, Broad could pick it up at a substantial discount.

Reuters:

“Eli Broad, a wealthy philanthropist who once looked at buying the Los Angeles Times, is still interested in a foray into the newspaper business, he told a gathering in New York on Monday night.

‘We can’t afford to lose good newspaper journalism, investigative reporting,’ the 75-year old retired business maven said during a lecture on business in philanthropy at the 92nd Street Y in Manhattan.

Broad, jokingly, said: ‘I’ve regained my sanity since then,’ referring to his earlier interest. But turning more serious, he added: ‘I would like to see our foundation and others join together to own the L.A. Times.’”

Forbes pegged Broad’s net worth at $6.7 billion back in September, so even if he’s been pole-axed since then, he’ll still be able to buy the paper without breaking a sweat.

But unless Broad is going to convince his fellow gazillionaires to adopt papers throughout the country, this strategy won’t let the industry off the hook.