Posted on 12/19/2007 10:34:43 AM PST by abb
The Business Press Maven's head is bent in utter sorrow. Why this time?
Well, all the way back on Monday, I was forced to lament the fact that sometimes it was better to just read a company's press release rather than the articles that follow it.
As you'll recall, the watermelon-sized merger of Ingersoll Rand (IR) and Trane (TT) was announced just as Sunday night was turning into Monday, and since there were not many sober, experienced business journalists around in the middle of the night, what hit up on the wires for hours on end were regurgitations on the original press release announcing the $10 billion deal.
At least you know a press release is biased, I opined, but when you read the same stuff from a business journalist -- even with the company-issued bullet points rearranged for the appearance of independence -- you run a larger risk of being duped, lulled into a false sense that you are reading independent thought.
Today we saw a worse example, and it was as if the evil incompetence of the business media finally won out. Ask me sometime, and I'll tell you how I really feel.
On Tuesday, The New York Times (NYT) reported what at first appeared to be a small miracle: revenue that budged up. Then the press release, about as forthright and appropriate as any you will see, mentioned right in the second paragraph the reasons why: The month had an extra week, and one of the company's few hot products came out in November this year instead of December. Their explanation was clear, concise and featured prominently:
"November's advertising results benefited from a shift in the Company's fiscal calendar. In 2006 the fiscal month-end was November 26 while in 2007 it was December 2, adding an extra "holiday season" week to the month. The New York Times Media Group's advertising revenues also benefited from a shift in the timing of T: Holiday, which was published in fiscal November this year compared with fiscal December last year. T: Holiday's advertising pages were up 8% over last year's publication and it was the first issue featured on the new T Web site at NYTimes.com/magazine."
And how did the business media pick up this key factor, one fed to them with a spoon? Uh, they dropped the spoon. And not to put too fine a point on it, the egg that was on the spoon cracked to pieces and turned rancid.
CBS MarketWatch From Dow(n) Jones came out with this: "New York Times November revenue up 1.7%," it yelled in approval, with no time for a prominently mentioned caveat.
But surely, you say, the caveat was in the body of the article, right? Wrong.
Here's the lame article: "The New York Times Co. (NYT New York Times Company) said Tuesday that in November total company revenues from continuing operations rose 1.7% compared with the same month a year ago. Advertising revenues decreased 0.2% and circulation revenues increased 3.7%. The About Group again posted strong advertising growth in the month, up 23.7%. "
The Associated Press was equally excited about that revenue rise, and equally loath to mention the extra week, even though its article was much, much longer. Here's the headline: "Web Sites Carry Times to Revenue Rise." The callout crooned: "New York Times' November Continuing Revenue Edges Higher by 1.7 Percent; Web Properties Lead." And, again, you can dust the article for fingerprints, but you'll see no evidence of that extra week that the Times flaks, people paid to put the company in positive light, featured so prominently.
Forbes, which mercifully managed to mention the extra week and product, was possibly, in the end, as bad as those that didn't. That's because Forbes spoke about the "glimmers of hope" in the monthly numbers despite the caveats. Uh, an extra holiday week on the base of four ain't really as simple as a "caveat," and it does seem to outweigh any glimmer, no?
After the close, CBS MarketWatch ran another story, this one making a motion toward the appropriate measure of caution with this headline: "Gannett, N.Y. Times see more classified woes."
But still no mention of the extra holiday week.
So it has come to this: a press release more open and honest about basic issues than the business media reports that follow. No wonder my head is so bent in sorrow that it keeps banging against my desk. And no wonder I always tell you, the savvy investor, to beware. And be aware.
Ping
There is laziness, then there is sloth.
I'm ashamed to say I didn't catch that extra week either. And I'm supposed to be the guru FReeper that watches the Media Biz. I saw the AP story and just scanned it and went on. Never did read the NYT presser.
A while back I did catch a quarter on quarter comparison on some newspaper company where there was an extra weekend this year vs. last. I did think it strange that Gannett showed revenue declines in November and not the NY Times. Those two stories hit about the same time.
The NY Slimes continues to Enron its advertisers and stockholders.
Let me see if I understand this correctly.
They are talking about advertising REVENUES, not PROFITS. Therefore, if you add another week from four to five, you are basically adding 25% to the revenues, especially since that fifth week is supposedly fatter than the other four.
So, instead of rising 1.7%, it’s very likely that revenues dropped nearly 25%. Hmm. Minor adjustment, I don’t think.
When it’s creditors finally padlock the Times Building the rest of the establishment news media will thrash around blindly like a chicken with its head cut off.
Well, yes. Sort of. Most businesses close their monthly businesses on the last Friday of the month, IIRC. Depending on where the days and dates hit, some monts are "five week" months and some "four week" months. Like maybe there are 8 four week months and 4 five week months every year. Bookkeepers like to close things on Fridays - it's their retentive nature, I suppose.
However, a five week month has 35 days compared to a four week month of 28 days. When comparing one against the other, it should be noted. Also, as I noted upthread, some quarterly comparisons may not have the same number of weekends, which could make a difference because of Sunday add sales.
To answer your question, I don't know if you could say the revenue comparison would be 25%, but it would be significant.
I’m glad I’m not an accountant.
Interesting article; if sales were REALLY up, wouldn't there have been a 20%+ increase over the previous year? A 1.7% increase with a additional seven days doesn't constitute an increase at all!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.