That won’t help employees at Time Warner’s Time Inc. publishing unit: The company confirmed that it will make big cuts this quarter and spend up to $100 million on restructuring charges. This is different from the $100 million in cuts that had been previously reported, but it will still mean hundreds of layoffs at the publisher.

Time Warner also boosted its guidance for the remainder of the year and confirmed once again that it wants to spin off AOL before the end of the year. As well it should: The company said it has already spent a staggering $24 million on the spinoff so far this year, which includes $9 million in “pretax direct transaction costs (e.g., legal and professional fees).” It has spent another $83 million in restructuring charges at that unit in 2009.

As usual, Time Warner said ad sales have been lousy, but that its cable networks and film divisions had done okay. The breakdown:

• Cable networks: Revenue up five percent, because subscriber fees were up nine percent. Ad revenue was down one percent.
• Warner Bros. movie studio: Revenue down four percent, because of slumping DVD sales.
• Time Inc.: Revenue down 18 percent; advertising down 22 percent. Adjusted operating income down 42 percent. Hence the coming cuts.
• AOL: Revenue down 23 percent. Subscription revenue, which will continue to shrink, was down another 29 percent, and ad revenue, which is supposed to improve one day, was down 18 percent.

The publisher said newspaper revenue dropped 20 percent in the third quarter, and print ads dropped by 28 percent; both of these numbers are worse than Q2, which saw revenue drop by 14 percent and print ads by 20 percent.

No relief from Web ads, either: Internet revenue dropped 18 percent, a decline from the nine percent drop in Q2. And online display ads, which had been more or less flat for the last few quarters, fell off a cliff, dropping 14 percent.

Don’t be duped by headlines reporting a drop in the newspaper division’s losses, by the way. That’s due to one-time accounting charges the previous year. If you look at operating revenue and expenses via a less formal, but more practical, lens, the results are very unpleasant: Losses increased by 55 percent (see summary below; click to enlarge).

Want more bad news? Okay: The company’s magazine group says revenue dropped 33 percent, driven by a staggering 48 percent drop in ad sales at Newsweek.

If you’re at, say, Time Warner’s (TWX) Time Inc. and want to whistle past the graveyard, you can try blaming the drop on the title’s unsuccessful overhaul. But I find it hard to believe that Newsweek’s woes don’t reflect a larger magazine malaise. We’ll see next week.

The good news, as always: The big difference between the Post and many other publishers is that its parent company doesn’t depend on print media. The company’ core education business, which is what has sustained it for many years, continues to do well.

But here’s a very slight twist: The sales decline slowed in the most recent quarter. U.S. sales dropped 11.1 percent in Q3, compared to a 14.5 percent drop in Q2, according to Nielsen Soundscan.

That’s the good news. The bad news is that Michael Jackson isn’t going to pass away again–and that unless they finally do come to Apple’s (AAPL) iTunes, there probably isn’t another way to repackage the Beatles again. Billboard:

Renewed interest in the Beatles and Michael Jackson slowed the decline of U.S. album sales in the third quarter, although the industry is still on track to fall for the eighth time in nine years….

Music retailers are hoping that the continued performance of Jackson and Beatles albums and a strong fourth-quarter release schedule will continue to make up lost ground.

During the quarter, Jackson’s June 25 death fueled sales of about 5 million units, and the September 9 re-release of the Beatles catalog has sold 1.3 million units so far.

So far this year 11 albums have topped the 1 million-unit mark, the same number as in 2008. In 2008, the top seller was Lil Wayne’s “Tha Carter III,” at 2.5 million units; this year’s top seller is Jackson’s “Number Ones,” at 1.8 million units.

The publisher was able to take a big chunk out of operating costs, knocking them down 20 percent. But revenue fell faster. The paper did say, though, that things got less bad as the quarter progressed, and that they’ll get slightly less bad next quarter, too.

The numbers: After factoring out one-time charges and benefits, the Times posted earnings of eight cents per share, well above the four-cent loss the Street was expecting. But revenue dropped 21 percent, to $585 million; the consensus was $603 million.

The Times posted an operating profit of $23.3 million; without one-time charges that number would have been $66.1 million. That’s worse than the $100 million the paper made a year ago, but much better than the $74.5 million it lost (net) in Q1.

But! Ad revenue declined 30.2 percent, an acceleration from last quarter’s 28 percent drop. In addition to the regular culprits, the Times noted a “lower volume of online advertising.” More details on that: Internet revenue dropped a shocking 14.3 percent, and Internet ad revenue was down 15.5 percent; last quarter they were down 5.6 percent and 6.1 percent.

The assessment from Times CEO Janet Robinson:

Based on what we have seen so far in July, we expect the advertising environment to continue to be challenging. We believe the rate of decline will moderate slightly in the third quarter from what we experienced in the second quarter.

As we look ahead, an enduring constant is the outstanding journalism of The New York Times Company and the esteem in which it is held by our readers. For the balance of the year, we are focused on developing innovative new products and platforms based on our high-quality journalism, particularly in the digital area, and continuing to aggressively lower our cost base to better align it with our revenues. When the economy and ad markets improve, we believe we will be very well positioned to benefit from the restructuring of our business.

If that’s the kind of thing that makes you happy, then you would love today’s call, in which the exact same thing happened again. Twice! From my transcription/paraphrase this afternoon:

Q: What about getting into the low priced/netbook category?

Apple COO Tim Cook: “Our goal is not to build the most computers, it’s to build the best. Whatever price point we can build the best in, we will play there. At this point, we don’t see a way to build a great product at that price point, $399, $499.” We think many customers buying those find themselves “disenchanted” after buying cheapo/netbooks.

Q: Do you think there is an emerging market for a “truly mobile device” with a larger screen, a market big enough that you may want to participate?

Cook: “Never want to discount anything in the future,” and never want to answer specifically your question about new products. [Duh.] But boy, do we think netbooks are lousy, and we think customers agree.

Two things here:

1. Apple has a history of disparaging products and markets right before they unveil their own. So it’s not unreasonable for analysts to keep asking about the prospects for a supercheap Mac laptop. But Apple really is emphatic about its distaste for these machines.
2. Apple is not ruling some sort of device that’s more expensive than a netbook and less expensive than a $999 MacBook…and may have a big touchscreen…and is bigger than an iPhone, etc. Something, perhaps, like an $800 iTablet. We’ll see.

EARLIER:

Joining call late; analysis of Q3 results here.

Reading from prepared statement:

• Eight billion songs purchased and downloaded from iTunes store.
• Slight uptick at Mac retail stores. 50 percent of Macs sold at stores to customers who didn’t own Macs before. 258 stores. 27 store remodels.
• Gross-margin improvement: Component cost increase not as high as expected; weaker U.S. dollar helped.
• Cash pile: Will be invested in short-term investments. First week of Q4, made $500 million payment to Toshiba for future supply of NAND flash memory.

Q&A:

• Please talk about your relationship with wireless carriers (i.e., when will you dump AT&T (T) for Verizon (VZ). Tim Cook: “I think that most of the carriers we’re doing business with are thrilled with lower churn…and, of course, their customers are demanding the iPhone.” Do you see opportunity beyond the iPhone, like data plans for laptops with AT&T? “Nothing to be announced today.” How’s your relationship with AT&T? “I think it’s an excellent relationship and we’re very happy with it.”
• Discussion of education and professional market for Mac laptops/PCs–both affected by economy more than consumer market, i.e., schools and corporations are less likely to spring for shiny new Macs than Joe Sixpack.
• How is the $99 iPhone performing? As we made changes–launch of 3Gs and lower-priced iPhones–we saw acceleration of unit sales. But won’t break down mix. Supply of phones has been “constrained” and demand is robust. Opportunity for enterprise sale? Big opportunity. Doing well with small business, and with big corporations and agencies where employees can purchase for themselves.
• Guidance details? No change in thinking regarding guidance offerings. We usually see an increase in Mac units from June to September, but we think the sequential increase will be less than in previous years since we’ve refreshed our lines a while back. Also, education sales are “under pressure from budget shortfalls.” Same thing with the iPod: We think we’ll see a decline for regular players but an increase for the iPod touch. Seasonality makes projections a little funky this time around given timing of product launches.
• Channel inventory for iPhone lower is than we would like; there are 1.83 million phones in inventory.
• Given the $999 MacBook and price cuts for the Mac line, is the MacBook more or less elastic than anticipated? As we expected, some people are now buying up, because they can get the Macbook Pro for $1,199, down from $1,899. “We’re not thinking fundamentally different about the Mac business than we were before.” If we can build great Macs at lower prices, we will, but we won’t put the Mac brand on products that aren’t up to our standards.
• Update on Snow Leopard? Why such a low price point? Snow Leopard is priced aggressively so that all our users can upgrade to it, and we expect that they will. What commodity prices are you worried about, what should we think of the Toshiba prebuy? Are others coming? The market for DRAM and large-size LCDs has “shifted to constrained environment” and prices have moved accordingly. The NAND supply is getting better. We have a long-term supply agreement with Toshiba. We view flash as key component because we use it in so many products, and we’re a big consumer on a worldwide basis. We’re always open to similar deals. We’ve done one with LG on LCDs. We may do others, but we’re not working on one now.
• Please talk more about consumer demand for lower-priced laptops. No details forthcoming. But on macro level: Once price changes, people are upsold from $999 unit to $1,199 unit. [We just heard that.] Prior to change, we had seen people leaning toward the $999 product. What about pricing on iPhone side? Sounds like $99 3G iPhone helped drive traffic to the $199 3GS iPhone. Was that the plan? We’re focused on total iPhone units. So we’re psyched about 5.2M iPhones sold. Also, take note that the 3GS is in short supply and not available in all territories. Also, early in cycle, you have more upgraders, and upgraders are more likely to get higher priced phones. Still, too early to tell about product mix.
• Competitors are now finally coming out with rival app stores–Pre (barely), BlackBerry, etc.). What are you up to in answering back? Well, we just launched OS 3.0. That’s pretty great. It has an Installed base of 45 million (iPhones and iPod touch). We have a gazillion apps. According to the latest numbers from Nokia (NOK) and RIM (RIMM), they have a couple thousand each; Android has maybe 5,000. “We feel extremely good about our competitive position and continue to believe that we’re light years ahead of other people.”
• What about getting into the low-priced/netbook category? Tim Cook: “Our goal is not to build the most computers, it’s to build the best. Whatever price point we can build the best in, we will play there. At this point, we don’t see a way to build a great product at that price point, $399, $499.” We think many customers buying those find themselves “disenchanted” after buying cheapo/netbooks.
• Is the carrier network strong enough to handle all the apps and the more robust apps you’re coming out with every day? Non-answer. Do you think you guys will make investments on the side to take pressure of carrier-capacity issues? No plans. When we entered business, we looked at it, decided what we could do well was deliver the handset. I think there are other people that have more skills in the network area, and I think we have a lot of those partners.
• Back to netbooks and things like netbooks, but better, like the iTablet: Do you think there is an emerging market for a “truly mobile device” with a larger screen, a market big enough that you may want to participate? Cook: “Never want to discount anything in the future,” and never want to answer specifically your question about new products. [Duh.] But, boy, do we think netbooks are lousy and we think customers agree.
• Any info on iPhone sales split between new buyers and upgrades? Nope. Okay, how about the app store? It looks like prices are in a “race to the bottom”; there are lots of 99 cent apps. Are you worried about that? And can you help customers distinguish between good ones and “garbage”? Cook: “We realize there’s further opportunity for improvement” regarding promoting quality apps, etc. Regarding price: It’s up to the developers. As the installed base grows, it makes more sense to have lower prices, but that’s up to the developers.

Call finished.

While it’s true that Time Warner’s (TWX) magazine unit is embattled, there are bright spots in the portfolio. Take People.com: The gossip magazine has always been one of Time’s strongest performers (good luck trying to find a discounted subscription). Now its companion Web site is, too.

The site boasts 8.6 million unique monthly visitors, per comScore (SCOR), up 36 percent in the last year, and generates a staggering 700 million page views per month–per Omniture (OMTR). Meanwhile, once-hot sites like TMZ.com (another Time Warner property) have tailed off.

Much of the credit for that goes to Mark Golin, the awesomely sharp and frumpy editor best known as the man behind Maxim magazine’s rise, way back in the late 1990s. He’s successfully broadened the site beyond just Britney/Paris/Lindsay news by adding features like a game channel, a shopping channel and the like.

One of the most successful expansions came via acquisition: When People.com bought Celebrity Baby Blog back in May, it was generating 6.9 million page views per month. Now it’s doing 30 million, Time execs say. And before my fellow journobloggers dismiss the work that the people at Celebrity Baby Blog do, ask yourself this: Did you know that Ashlee Simpson has named her kid Bronx Mowgli? Aren’t you glad you know now?

In any case, all those page views are translating into actual dollars–not digital pennies, as NBC’s Jeff Zucker would say. Time Inc. says People.com is now one of its 10 most profitable titles–that’s out of all of the company’s 174 properties, on or offline.

The company won’t attach numbers to that claim, of course. But given that Time Inc. generated $162 million in operating profit during a very lousy third quarter, you can get some sense of the property’s success. Now Time just needs many more just like it.

That’s not what the release from the Interactive Advertising Bureau and Pricewaterhouse says, of course. It notes, instead, that the industry notched 11 percent year-over-year U.S. revenue growth in the third quarter of this year, and two percent growth compared to last quarter, which it says indicates a “stabilized” market.

But when the trade group for an industry known for go-go growth says things have “stabilized,” you know things are grim. Here’s what “stabilized” growth looks like in graphic form (click to enlarge):

But here’s the really disturbing thought for everyone who depends on Web ad revenue, or the promise of Web ad revenue (and yes, I’m talking about my employer as well): What would that chart look like without the contributions of Google, which grew 31 percent in the last quarter (and two percent compared to the previous quarter)?

By the IAB’s own count, search revenue makes up a little less than half of its total (44 percent in Q2), and Google (GOOG), of course, accounts for the majority of that market. You do the math. Or better yet, spend that time figuring out how to stay afloat for the next year.