The list also reflects how industry trends can accelerate the demise of certain brands. This year, we included two magazines — Martha Stewart Living and Road & Track. With print advertising in a multiyear decline, some magazines have weathered the decline better than others. These two, however, have suffered sharp drops in advertising revenue over the past five years. Magazines also carry the heavy legacy costs of printing, paper and distribution — a problem not shared by online-only competition.

Click here to see the 10 brands

Consumer electronics is another category with disappearing brands. The Barnes & Noble Nook is on the list. It competes with better-selling products made by larger companies — Apple and Amazon.com — and is also in the e-reader business, a shrinking industry. The Olympus digital camera also will disappear from store shelves by the end of 2014. Camera sales, especially point-and-shoot models, have been eroded by smartphones, which have increasingly high-quality cameras.

Yet another industry with two brands on our list is automobiles. Car sales are growing in the United States, but brands with market shares under half a percent cannot compete with companies that either produce high-luxury models like Mercedes-Benz or multiline giants like General Motors. Suzuki pulled out of the American market last year. Mitsubishi and Volvo will follow soon.

Looking back on last year’s calls list, we have had some winners, and some bad calls. Suzuki, MetroPCS and Current TV are all gone in the United States. American Airlines is part of a new company through its combination with U.S. Airways, though the American Airlines name lives on. Talbots was acquired by a private equity firm less than two months after we called it. Research In Motion is no longer a brand, having been renamed BlackBerry. We bungled our predictions regarding Avon, the Oakland Raiders and Salon.

We continue to use the same methodology in deciding which brands will disappear. The major criteria include:

1. Declining sales and losses;
2. Disclosures by the parent of the brand that it might go out of business;
3. Rising costs that are unlikely to be recouped through higher prices;
4. Companies that are sold;
5. Companies that go into bankruptcy;
6. Companies that have lost the great majority of their customers; and
7. Operations with withering market share.

Each brand on the list suffers from one or more of these problems. Each of the 10 will be gone, based on our definitions, within 18 months.

This is 24/7 Wall St.’s 10 brands that will disappear in 2014.

Macy’s also has announced a dividend increase, from a quarterly total of $0.20 to $0.25, beginning with the current quarter. And the company has increased its stock buyback program by $1.5 billion, bringing the total available for share repurchases to $2.6 billion.

In its outlook statement, Macy’s said that it continues to expect same-store sales growth of 3.5% for the 2013 fiscal year. The company also reiterated its EPS guidance for $3.90 to $3.95 for the year. The consensus full-year estimates call for EPS of $3.92 on revenues of $28.35 billion.

The company’s CEO said:

We are especially pleased with our first quarter sales and earnings performance given the challenges we overcame in this period. These included sustained, unseasonably cool spring weather in our northern climate zones. In addition, we saw weakness among some of the most budget-conscious consumers, as well as among our higher household income Bloomingdale’s customers.

The company did not mention its ongoing lawsuits against Martha Stewart Omnimedia Inc. (NYSE: MSO) and J.C. Penney Co. Inc. (NYSE: JCP) related to a contract between Macy’s and Martha Stewart that Macy’s thinks is exclusive and that Martha Stewart and J.C. Penney believe leaves room for other deals. J.C. Penney has won some initial rounds, but a conclusive decision has not yet been issued.

Shares are up about 2.2% in premarket trading this morning, at $48.45, which would be a new 52-week high if it holds. The current 52-week range is $32.31 to $47.67, and the high was posted yesterday. Thomson Reuters had a consensus analyst price target of around $48.10 before today’s results were announced.

She has the help and she has her health. If she makes it to 100, Stewart will never outlive the permanent place she has earned in the “Shareholder Hall of Shame” due to the endless disappointment that her company has been to its stockholders.

Stewart is a master of misdirection. She assumes that if she spends enough time in the public eye with her own image as the model for entertaining, home decorating and gardening, then no one will notice that the company she founded to house her media properties has fallen into terrible disrepair. Aside from her new book, most recently she was on the front pages of most American media because she wants a mate. One of the ways she means to find one is through a posting on dating site Match.com. Who would the lucky man be? According to the Washington Post: “Someone who’s intelligent, established, and curious; and who relishes adventure and new experiences as much as I do. Someone who can teach me new things. A lover of animals, grandchildren, and the outdoors. Young at heart.”

Stewart is as rich as she is beautiful … and tasteful. Buried in a recent SEC filing was the fact that Martha Stewart Omnimedia paid its founder $5,460,406 in 2012, and somewhat more in 2011 and 2010. Her new beau, if she finds one, can enjoy, among other things, the ”$127,955 she is paid for a weekend driver and a portion of the cost of a weekly driver for non-business usage” and be kept out of harm’s way due to the $642,128 the company pays for security services. If money can buy a long life, she did not put this fact in her new book.

Public company leaders who are also public figures can become distracted, just as they can distract shareholders from their performances as people who owe shareholders their best efforts. Stewart, famous on her own, has largely stayed out of the harsh light of the performance of the company she founded. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia has lost money each of the past five years — more than $111 million in all — as revenue has fallen from $284.3 million in 2008 to $197.6 million. Figures for the first quarter of this year showed that the downward spiral has continued. Revenue fell from $49.8 million last year to $37.2 million. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia lost $3.3 million for the period.

Live long and prosper, Martha Stewart. Many of your shareholders are already done for.

The company reported that revenue fell from $49.8 million to $37.2 million. The quarter saw a net loss of $3.3 million, or $0.05 a share, the same as in the year-ago period. The worst numbers were for publishing, the largest division. Revenue fell from $30.8 million to $24.5 million. Revenue in the broadcasting operation was also pound down from $5.4 million to $1.2 million. Some of the drop in revenue had to do with a restructuring under which some of the firm’s media assets were sold. The bottom line showed that the actions did not result in any financial progress.

Dan Taitz, Interim Principal Executive Officer, was bold enough to make the results seem palatable, which cannot possibly be the case:

First quarter results were a bit better than expected on the bottom line but overall in line with our plans as we position MSLO for the future. Our restructured Publishing business delivered solid digital advertising growth and reduced expenses. Our Merchandising business is performing as anticipated and we recently began offering initial products in JC Penney stores and on jcp.com. Overall we remain focused on taking the right steps to drive more profitable revenue from our strong brands and return the Company to sustainable growth.

A bit better than expected in what world, except one of fantasy. The numbers for the quarter were not only poor, the J.C. Penney Co. Inc. (NYSE: JCP) deal could collapse if a suit by Macy’s Inc. (NYSE: M) over exclusive rights to some Martha Stewart products is won by the successful retailer.

Observers of the company almost all agree that a chief executive officer with media and turnaround skills should be hired as soon as possible. No matter who takes the job, if Stewart will not take a back seat in terms operating control, the company will continue to shrink and losses will rise to the point where the Martha Stewart is not longer a viable standalone enterprise.

For a company with a market cap of around $182 million, one might argue that Martha Stewart is overpaid. Ralph Lauren Corp. (NYSE: RL) has a market cap of more than $15 billion and Mr. Lauren was paid a base salary of $1.25 million in fiscal year 2012, and he was eligible for bonus payments up to an additional $19.5 million. Lauren also serves as his company’s CEO and chairman, while Stewart is the nonexecutive chairman and chief editorial media and content officer at MSO.

Stewart’s compensation is virtually all guaranteed by an “Intangible Asset License Agreement” that treats Stewart as “talent,” in much the same way that a movie or TV actor is treated. Last year, MSO extended Stewart’s contract, which was set to expire last March, through June of 2017, although terms have not yet been finalized. According to an amended Form 10-K filing made last week, “Ms. Stewart’s base salary recognizes her incredible value to the company in providing her creativity and talent to the company’s businesses.”

In other words, without Martha Stewart there is no MSO. She is in the driver’s seat at contract time. And how does it pay off? Well, when MSO announced its controversial agreement with J.C. Penney Co. Inc. (NYSE: JCP), J.C. Penney was required to purchase 11 million shares at a cost of $38.5 million.

The current court fight between J.C. Penney and Macy’s Inc. (NYSE: M) turns on the value of Stewart’s name. Stewart’s value may not be “incredible” to either J.C. Penney or Macy’s, but it is definitely large enough to wage an expensive courtroom battle over.

While Stewart’s total compensation package appears to be out of line with the company’s market cap and sales, without her name MSO likely would be out of business.

Penney had voluntarily withheld the goods from sale pending the court decision and the company’s warehouses had reportedly stacked up $100 million worth of the Everyday-branded goods awaiting the result of the court’s ruling on the restraining order. A court order banning Penney sales of any Martha Stewart-branded items remains in force.

Macy’s had sought the restraining order while it appealed an earlier court ruling that permitted Penney to sell the Everyday-branded items. The courts have been reluctant to restrain Penney from selling the goods, apparently willing to let the Macy’s suit wend its way through the system and then making Penney pay damages if it turns out that Macy’s suffered injury from the sale of the Stewart items.

Shares of Penney’s stock are up 1.7% shortly after noon today, at $14.99 in a 52-week range of $13.55 to $36.89.

The judge in the case expects to issue a decision tomorrow on the request from Macy’s Inc. (NYSE: M) for a temporary restraining order that would prevent J.C. Penney from selling the disputed items until the court case is decided.

Based on his previous rulings, it seems likely that the judge will deny the temporary restraining order and lift the ban he imposed last night on the sale of the Everyday-branded items. The judge has also chided both parties, telling them that this is a business dispute that should not have been brought to court. From his statements and previous rulings, he is reluctant to restrain J.C. Penney from selling the goods, seeming to prefer to let the Macy’s suit wend its way through the courts and then making J.C. Penney pay up if it turns out that Macy’s suffered injury from the sale of the Martha Stewart items.

J.C. Penney shares are down about 1.8% in the first half-hour of trading this morning, at $14.92 in a 52-week range of $13.55 to $36.89.

According to Media Industry Newsletter, Martha Stewart Living advertising pages rose 7% in the first four issues of the 2013 to 241. Under most circumstances, such a rebound would be positive. However, ad pages fell in numbers well into the double digits last year, so a much larger recovery would be necessary to make a substantial difference.

The public corporation’s publishing revenue was 60% of all sales in 2012, with broadcasting and merchandising representing the balance. And the revenue of the publishing division fell from $141 million in 2011 to $124 million. The operating loss for the division was $62 million. Full year expenses for the unit included a $44 million impairment cost. The company disclosed the specifics of the problem:

Publishing segment revenues decreased 13% in 2012 from 2011. Print advertising revenue decreased $11.0 million primarily due to a decrease in advertising pages in Martha Stewart Living, along with slightly lower rates.

Almost all the focus on Martha Stewart Omnimedia recently has been on the battle between Macy’s Inc. (NYSE: M) and J.C. Penney Co. Inc. (NYSE: JPC) over the rights to sell certain Martha Stewart brand products. Based on the history of the media company, that dispute is merely a sideshow that ignores the business that will set the tone for earnings in the first quarter, and probably the entire year.

Like many old media companies, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia remains stuck with a legacy print business model in an era in which print has nearly died and will not recover.

The stock market usually is wise about what makes companies successes or failures. As the front page stories about Martha Stewart are about retail products, the firm’s shares have dropped to $2.39, very close to a 52-week low. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia is still on life support. That will not change until it addresses its print advertising problem, which is almost certainly one it cannot solve.

It now seems likely that the court will not issue a temporary injunction forbidding J.C. Penney to sell Martha Stewart-designed goods that are sold under the store’s “Everyday” brand.

The same court yesterday did refuse Martha Stewart’s bid to dismiss the Macy’s claim. A Reuters report said the judge continued to push the two sides to settle the dispute, saying, “This is a business deal that you should not have courts getting involved in.”

Now the Ron Johnson is out as J.C. Penney’s CEO, it is worth pondering whether the company will continue with its plans to include boutique shops like Martha Stewart and Michael Davis inside the larger J.C. Penney stores. J.C. Penney already has said it will return to sending out coupons, so it is reasonable to question the other changes that Johnson wanted to bring to the retailer.

J.C. Penney shares are down this morning on reports that the firm has hired Blackstone Group L.P. (NYSE: BX) to help it raise $1 billion, just about enough to cover the losses the store racked up during Johnson’s tenure.

Shares are trading at $14.40, down more than 3% in a 52-week range of $13.55 to $36.89.

The earnings of Wells Fargo & Co. (NYSE: WFC) and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM) will be an early indication of the health of big banks. (WSJ)

Nasdaq OMX Group Inc. (NASDAQ: NDAQ) cuts the pay of CEO Robert Greifeld because of the botched Facebook Inc. (NASDAQ: FB) initial public offering. (WSJ)

J.C. Penney Co. Inc. (NYSE: JCP) will try to raise $1 billion. (WSJ)

The advertising director of AOL Inc. (NYSE: AOL) likely will move to Yahoo! Inc. (NASDAQ: YHOO). (WSJ)

Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE) and GlaxoSmithKline PLC (NYSE: GSK) cut payments to doctors who are consultants. (WSJ)

Eli Lilly & Co. (NYSE: LLY) lays off a large part of its sales staff. (WSJ)

Royal Dutch Shell PLC (NYSE: RDS-A) increases efforts to cut theft of crude in Nigeria. (WSJ)

Lenders to Cyprus expect the costs of its bailout to nearly double. (NYT)

Portugal may need to ask its lenders for a second bailout. (FT)

Boeing Co. (NYSE: BA) faces a challenge getting the 787 back in service because of slow FAA clearance. (Bloomberg)