• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Компании976
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации11
      • Показать ещё
      Разное126
      • Показать ещё
      Показатели53
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы56
      • Показать ещё
      Издания26
      • Показать ещё
      Формат5
      Люди32
      • Показать ещё
      Сферы1
Выбор редакции
17 января, 18:04

JC Penney shares up 4.6%

This is a Real-time headline. These are breaking news, delivered the minute it happens, delivered ticker-tape style. Visit www.marketwatch.com or the quote page for more information about this breaking news.

Выбор редакции
17 января, 18:03

JC Penney teams up with Nike in more than 600 stores

This is a Real-time headline. These are breaking news, delivered the minute it happens, delivered ticker-tape style. Visit www.marketwatch.com or the quote page for more information about this breaking news.

11 января, 22:56

What Dampened the Holiday Mood of These Department Stores?

The impact of challenging retail landscape, stiff competition from online retailers and waning store traffic was clearly visible on these stocks.

10 января, 21:42

10,000 Jobs Donald Trump Doesn't Care About At All

Facing seismic shifts in the way Americans shop, Macy’s recently announced it was closing 68 stores around the country, laying off thousands of workers  ― many of them low-paid sales associates, plenty of women and people of color, many working at failing malls where jobs are getting harder to come by. In total, after Macy’s is done cutting back, more than 10,000 people will lose their jobs.  President-elect Donald Trump doesn’t appear to care about those workers. Trump, who ran on a platform of bringing back and creating jobs, responded to Macy’s layoff news with glee ― as a personal victory for himself. [email protected] was one of the worst performing stocks on the S&P last year, plunging 46%,” Trump tweeted. “Very disloyal company. Another win for Trump! Boycott.” .@Macys was one of the worst performing stocks on the S&P last year, plunging 46%. Very disloyal company. Another win for Trump! Boycott.— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 7, 2016 At first glance, the tweet is easy to understand: In the summer of 2015, Macy’s cut ties with Trump in response to the offensive remarks the then-GOP presidential candidate had made about Mexicans. Trump and his followers launched a boycott. So, of course, the president-elect sees the company’s news in personal terms. But there’s something else going on. And it has everything to do with the kinds of jobs Trump feels are worthy of attention. So far, he has been almost totally concerned with old-school factory and manufacturing jobs, on the whole a declining part of the job market. Meanwhile, he’s ignored retail jobs, which employ a huge segment of working-class Americans. About 15 million Americans work in the retail industry, a number projected by the Labor Department to grow to 16 million by 2024. Manufacturing jobs are projected to decline by 2 million over that time period. The problem is: retail jobs aren’t great jobs. The median hourly wage for a retail salesperson is $10.47 an hour, according to the Labor Department. The benefits are poor. Women make up the majority of low-paid retail workers, according to a 2015 report from progressive think tank Demos. A common misconception about who works in retail is that they are teenagers and students putting themselves through school, but the Demos report paints a different picture. Among low-wage earning retail workers who are women, 36 percent have children at home. “Donald Trump isn’t worried about losing these jobs or aiming to raise standards for people working in these jobs,” Amy Traub, associate director of policy and research at Demos told The Huffington Post. But retail jobs aren’t going away and as increasing numbers of working families depend on the wages from these jobs, it’s imperative to find a way to improve them. Americans depend on their wages from retail jobs to raise families. They need to be able to get time off to deal with sick kids or a pregnancy, they need to put food on the table, to see the doctor. Traub notes that the way you make these jobs better is hardly a secret. First, you raise the minimum wage. Second, you enact paid sick leave and paid parental leave. You put in place better regulations around scheduling ― as some states have done ― so that working parents aren’t at the mercy of daily changing schedules. It’s worth noting that the factory jobs Trump is so keen on saving didn’t used to be great jobs. Unions fought for better working conditions and pay and the federal government put in place laws to protect these unions. “Making it easier for workers to organize may be the key to turning service jobs into good jobs, as well,” Traub said. Don’t hold your breath for a Trump administration that supports unions. Trump’s pick to head up the Department of Labor, fast-food CEO Andy Puzder, vehemently opposes the Fight for $15 movement, which seeks to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 from its current $7.25. Union officials see him as an opponent of working people.  More than 10,000 layoffs at Macy's and we hear nothing from the president-elect. And yet Trump models himself as the champion of the working man. “Too many of our leaders have forgotten that it’s their duty to protect the jobs, wages and well-being of American workers before any other consideration,” Trump said in a speech on jobs in September in New York. He proposed turning this situation around by lowering taxes, reducing regulations and offering working families a child care tax credit. (None of those moves would’ve saved the jobs of those Macy’s workers, by the way.) Macy’s is facing immense competition from the web and from speciality and discount stores that are steadily stealing away its clientele. These days, women buy their makeup at stores like Sephora, and their clothes at discount retailers like TJ Maxx. And of course, everyone shops online where Amazon is seeing tremendous growth. All of this has spelled doom for the nation’s malls, where Macy’s once dominated as the anchor store that brought in the business. Other middle-of-the-road department stores are struggling too, including Kohl’s, JC Penney and Sears. Even if Macy’s hadn’t insulted Trump, there’s little reason to believe he would’ve intervened to save the jobs of its workers. Their struggles simply don’t fit Trump’s view of the American job market or who gets to be a real American worker. “More than 10,000 layoffs at Macy’s and we hear nothing from the president-elect compared to 700 jobs in Indiana,” Traub said, referring to a tax deal Trump put together to save 800 jobs at Carrier Corporation’s gas furnace factory. “By ignoring this, Trump is telling his base these aren’t real jobs and the people working at them aren’t real Americans.” -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

10 января, 21:42

10,000 Jobs Donald Trump Doesn't Care About At All

Facing seismic shifts in the way Americans shop, Macy’s recently announced it was closing 68 stores around the country, laying off thousands of workers  ― many of them low-paid sales associates, plenty of women and people of color, many working at failing malls where jobs are getting harder to come by. In total, after Macy’s is done cutting back, more than 10,000 people will lose their jobs.  President-elect Donald Trump doesn’t appear to care about those workers. Trump, who ran on a platform of bringing back and creating jobs, responded to Macy’s layoff news with glee ― as a personal victory for himself. [email protected] was one of the worst performing stocks on the S&P last year, plunging 46%,” Trump tweeted. “Very disloyal company. Another win for Trump! Boycott.” .@Macys was one of the worst performing stocks on the S&P last year, plunging 46%. Very disloyal company. Another win for Trump! Boycott.— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 7, 2016 At first glance, the tweet is easy to understand: In the summer of 2015, Macy’s cut ties with Trump in response to the offensive remarks the then-GOP presidential candidate had made about Mexicans. Trump and his followers launched a boycott. So, of course, the president-elect sees the company’s news in personal terms. But there’s something else going on. And it has everything to do with the kinds of jobs Trump feels are worthy of attention. So far, he has been almost totally concerned with old-school factory and manufacturing jobs, on the whole a declining part of the job market. Meanwhile, he’s ignored retail jobs, which employ a huge segment of working-class Americans. About 15 million Americans work in the retail industry, a number projected by the Labor Department to grow to 16 million by 2024. Manufacturing jobs are projected to decline by 2 million over that time period. The problem is: retail jobs aren’t great jobs. The median hourly wage for a retail salesperson is $10.47 an hour, according to the Labor Department. The benefits are poor. Women make up the majority of low-paid retail workers, according to a 2015 report from progressive think tank Demos. A common misconception about who works in retail is that they are teenagers and students putting themselves through school, but the Demos report paints a different picture. Among low-wage earning retail workers who are women, 36 percent have children at home. “Donald Trump isn’t worried about losing these jobs or aiming to raise standards for people working in these jobs,” Amy Traub, associate director of policy and research at Demos told The Huffington Post. But retail jobs aren’t going away and as increasing numbers of working families depend on the wages from these jobs, it’s imperative to find a way to improve them. Americans depend on their wages from retail jobs to raise families. They need to be able to get time off to deal with sick kids or a pregnancy, they need to put food on the table, to see the doctor. Traub notes that the way you make these jobs better is hardly a secret. First, you raise the minimum wage. Second, you enact paid sick leave and paid parental leave. You put in place better regulations around scheduling ― as some states have done ― so that working parents aren’t at the mercy of daily changing schedules. It’s worth noting that the factory jobs Trump is so keen on saving didn’t used to be great jobs. Unions fought for better working conditions and pay and the federal government put in place laws to protect these unions. “Making it easier for workers to organize may be the key to turning service jobs into good jobs, as well,” Traub said. Don’t hold your breath for a Trump administration that supports unions. Trump’s pick to head up the Department of Labor, fast-food CEO Andy Puzder, vehemently opposes the Fight for $15 movement, which seeks to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 from its current $7.25. Union officials see him as an opponent of working people.  More than 10,000 layoffs at Macy's and we hear nothing from the president-elect. And yet Trump models himself as the champion of the working man. “Too many of our leaders have forgotten that it’s their duty to protect the jobs, wages and well-being of American workers before any other consideration,” Trump said in a speech on jobs in September in New York. He proposed turning this situation around by lowering taxes, reducing regulations and offering working families a child care tax credit. (None of those moves would’ve saved the jobs of those Macy’s workers, by the way.) Macy’s is facing immense competition from the web and from speciality and discount stores that are steadily stealing away its clientele. These days, women buy their makeup at stores like Sephora, and their clothes at discount retailers like TJ Maxx. And of course, everyone shops online where Amazon is seeing tremendous growth. All of this has spelled doom for the nation’s malls, where Macy’s once dominated as the anchor store that brought in the business. Other middle-of-the-road department stores are struggling too, including Kohl’s, JC Penney and Sears. Even if Macy’s hadn’t insulted Trump, there’s little reason to believe he would’ve intervened to save the jobs of its workers. Their struggles simply don’t fit Trump’s view of the American job market or who gets to be a real American worker. “More than 10,000 layoffs at Macy’s and we hear nothing from the president-elect compared to 700 jobs in Indiana,” Traub said, referring to a tax deal Trump put together to save 800 jobs at Carrier Corporation’s gas furnace factory. “By ignoring this, Trump is telling his base these aren’t real jobs and the people working at them aren’t real Americans.” -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

09 января, 18:10

Stock Market News for January 09, 2017

Benchmarks posted modest gains on Friday following a solid December U.S. jobs report

09 января, 15:52

JC Penney Company's Stock Declines on Soft Holiday Sales

Shares of J. C. Penney Company, Inc. (JCP) declined 3.7% on Jan 6, 2017, following dismal holiday sales performance.

Выбор редакции
06 января, 15:37

JC Penney shares down 4.8% premarket

This is a Real-time headline. These are breaking news, delivered the minute it happens, delivered ticker-tape style. Visit www.marketwatch.com or the quote page for more information about this breaking news.

Выбор редакции
06 января, 15:37

JC Penney says weakness in women's apparel continued to pressure sales

This is a Real-time headline. These are breaking news, delivered the minute it happens, delivered ticker-tape style. Visit www.marketwatch.com or the quote page for more information about this breaking news.

Выбор редакции
06 января, 15:37

JC Penney still sees FY EBITDA $1 bln

This is a Real-time headline. These are breaking news, delivered the minute it happens, delivered ticker-tape style. Visit www.marketwatch.com or the quote page for more information about this breaking news.

Выбор редакции
06 января, 15:36

JC Penney holiday same-store sales down 0.8%

This is a Real-time headline. These are breaking news, delivered the minute it happens, delivered ticker-tape style. Visit www.marketwatch.com or the quote page for more information about this breaking news.

05 января, 15:08

The U.S. Media’s Problems Are Much Bigger than Fake News and Filter Bubbles

The U.S. media has come under intense scrutiny, with analysts, politicians, and even journalists themselves accusing it of bias and sensationalism — of having failed us — in its coverage of the presidential election. Critics across the political spectrum have said that fake news and cyberattacks played a big role in determining the course of events. The prevailing logic has an “if only” tenor: If only the media had been less swayed by shocking stories, if only bias in the media had been purged, and if only fake news had been eliminated and cyberattacks curtailed, the outcome would have been different. The presidential transition has been marked by the same attitude: if only the media were less distractible and headlines more accurate. Thinking that way is tempting, but it misses the mark. The media did exactly what it was designed to do, given the incentives that govern it. It’s not that the media sets out to be sensationalist; its business model leads it in that direction. Charges of bias don’t make the bias real; it often lies in the eye of the beholder. Fake news and cyberattacks are triggers, not causes. The issues that confront us are structural. To the question, If the media were to cover the election again, with the benefit of hindsight, could we expect anything different? my answer is a sobering no. This is for two reasons: the way news is produced and amplified (the supply side) and the way consumers process news (the demand side). A caveat is in order. The analysis here is not concerned with which candidate deserved to win or whose message was “better.” It is concerned with examining the media and its coverage, identifying its root causes, and understanding what we should expect going forward. The Supply Side I: Connectedness Matters More than Content or Money Political campaigns are marketing campaigns, messages aimed at selling a product. Like marketers, politicians obsess over messaging (what journalists would call “content”) and a few key metrics that historically have determined success: amount of television advertising, number of “foot soldiers,” intensity of get-out-the-vote operations, and voter demographics. But in the last two contests in which Hillary Clinton has participated, the 2008 primary and the 2016 election, she won on most of these metrics — and lost the elections. Two developments bear noting. First, and most obvious, traditional media is no longer the only way to spread the word. Any candidate can communicate directly and instantly with millions of people. Media companies are experiencing an extreme form of competition that comes with digital technologies: Everyone is a media company today. Second, and even more significant, social media is distinct from traditional media in that it connects users to each other. This means that messages can spread far more easily and quickly (compare how often you share a TV ad and a tweet). Essential Background How Focusing on Content Leads the Media Astray Strategy Audio Sarah Green Carmichael Bharat Anand, author of The Content Trap and professor at Harvard Business School, talks about the strategic challenges facing digital businesses. Save Share The implications are threefold: The best product doesn’t always win. Even if you have the best product or candidate, if you run a hub-and-spokes campaign, you’ll attract followers one by one. Create a product or candidate that connects users, and your message — and advantage — will spread rapidly. Apple learned this the hard way. For 20 years, starting in 1984, the Macintosh was superior to any PC. Yet by 2004 its market share was down to 3%. Apple had a great product, but Microsoft had a network of connected users. Because more people used PCs, and wrote software for them, they became the default choice for nearly everyone. Many organizations and entrepreneurs miss this lesson. Focus only on creating the best content or product, and you can lose because of untapped user connections — a phenomenon I call the “content trap.” It explains why firms that have anchored their strategies to content have ceded digital leadership to those that have focused on connections. Consider the Scandinavian media firm Schibsted, which engineered an impressive digital transformation through a philosophy of connectedness. It focused its efforts on earning a majority share of Europe’s digital classified advertising market (a product that connects buyers and sellers). It then shifted its news focus from great content to content rooted in the question “Can we help readers help each other?” During the volcanic ash crisis of 2010, what it offered wasn’t prize-winning stories about the roots of the eruption or its health implications, but an app (Hitchhiker’s Central) that allowed readers to share travel plans and offer rides to each other. Similarly, during the 2016 election, many American voters found journalistic content less relevant than what they were experiencing in their own lives. Bigger marketing budgets may not pay off. In a digital world full of product clutter, the best marketing campaigns spend nearly nothing. JC Penney spent no money on television advertising during the 2015 Super Bowl, yet its “mittens” campaign was one of the most watched. The campaign relied solely on Twitter and went viral by virtue of intentional spelling mistakes. Once a “connected” product draws in users, those users effectively become the sales force. Facebook, Uber, and Airbnb are all examples of this. Donald Trump spent only half of what Clinton did during the campaign. Expectations matter. In connected worlds, expectations about future growth affect what current users choose; people want to be on a winning platform. This has led to a strategy known as vaporware, a term for when firms announce strengths they may not possess or supposedly imminent product launches to draw users. Consider Trump’s first words in the June 2015 announcement of his candidacy: “Wow. Whoa. That is some group of people. Thousands.…This is beyond anybody’s expectations. There’s been no crowd like this.” This wasn’t just a campaign message; it was an effort to shape expectations and trigger connectedness. The Supply Side II: Ratings Determine Which Messages Get Amplified The first phase of a marketing campaign is deciding how and where to spend your marketing dollars. The second is influencing how your message gets amplified. One of the most important mechanisms for this is traditional media — so-called “earned media coverage.” You can spend a lot in the first phase and get little amplification in the second, or vice versa. Recycling the same message won’t earn amplification. And in today’s media environment, even “normal” news doesn’t break through information clutter; big, surprising events do. The media’s bias toward big events stems from three features of its economics: Fixed costs. The cost of covering a golf tournament doesn’t depend on whether Tiger Woods plays. But if he does, ratings — and revenue — double. The same phenomenon affects decisions about covering news stories or political rallies. An advertising-based model. Advertising (and other indirect charges like cable operator fees) are central to the economics of most news media, and this creates a bias whereby the number of viewers is more important than whether viewers like the coverage. (What matters is that you watch news coverage, not whether you are ready to throw a chair at it out of disgust.) Fixed costs have always been central to the economics of media. Advertising came later — and when it did, in the early 20th century, news became more sensational. That’s hardly surprising: The main metric by which news outlets are judged is the ratings they command, the page views they get, or the copies they sell. Spillovers. A big event in media and entertainment doesn’t just draw viewers to the event itself; it also entices viewers to consume follow-on or related products (and a company’s previous products, too). People who watch a television program are far more likely to watch the next program on that channel, for example. Each of these factors, individually, means that ratings or page views — the size of the audience — matter a lot for media firms. Together, they lead to a fixation on ratings to the exclusion of almost anything else. Competition further reinforces this dynamic, making audience size the metric by which media firms are measured. The outcome is a “ratings bubble” within which companies operate. Big-event bias is even more pronounced in entertainment worlds, where getting noticed has gotten increasingly hard over time. This explains the trend toward spinoffs, sequels, and franchises in broadcast television and movies (viewers are already familiar with the basic story) and big-name authors in books (they generate publicity) and why successful sports franchises tend to get even more successful over time (they draw lots of viewers, which allows them to spend more on star players, who draw even more viewers). Success might have more to do with awareness than with quality. When the pseudonymous Robert Galbraith published A Cuckoo’s Calling in 2013, the novel sold about 1,500 copies in the first month. After the author was revealed to be Harry Potter creator J.K. Rowling, sales rose to over one million. Piggybacking on big events has allowed certain media companies to grow over time. Fox News, for instance, entered the seemingly mature cable market in 1996 and experienced notable upticks in viewers after “big news” events — the 2000 election, the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and the start of the war in Iraq. When an event drew viewers to cable news in general, Fox’s ratings grew along with the other networks’. But more of the viewers who tuned into Fox stayed with it after the event had passed when they realized the network’s coverage was different. In political campaigns, big events arise in one of three ways. The first is sporadically and unpredictably, as with the San Bernardino shooting or the Access Hollywood tape. The timing of such surprises can be particularly fortuitous or damaging (see: James Comey). The second is through name recognition. Events become more newsworthy if they’re accompanied by a big name. The third is by being created. Steve Jobs understood this more than most technology executives, which is why he elevated product launches to an art form: Every media firm had to cover a new Apple release. And Trump understood this more than any other candidate: Every time he made a provocative comment on a new subject, the news outlets covered it. These forces help explain why Trump got so much more media coverage than, say, Bernie Sanders, who touted a similarly antiestablishment, populist message. Populism and inequality aren’t news; calling Mexican immigrants rapists and vowing to build a wall are. So Sanders’s brand of populism wasn’t news; Trump’s was. The reason was rooted in media economics, not in the effort or preferences of journalists and programming executives. A combination of fixed costs, an advertising-reliant model, and spillovers produced a staggering difference in earned media coverage during the primaries: $2 billion for Trump and $300 million for Sanders. Television advertising, where Clinton had a huge leg up on both, hardly seemed to matter at all. Competition Can Backfire Competition and private firms operating in their self-interest typically lead to well-functioning markets. But that’s not always what happens. A well-known exception occurs when externalities exist — side effects on other people or firms that aren’t usually accounted for by private actors. (Canonical examples are cigarette smoking or pollution, or a store manager in a large retail chain pursuing actions that benefit his individual store but damage the parent company’s brand.) In situations like these, following your self-interest (in this case, as a media firm) doesn’t necessarily further the collective good, or even your own. In 2009 Netflix needed high-quality content to grow its streaming business. It could get that content only from Hollywood studios. The studios had seen Netflix grow its DVD business for a decade, and now, with a stronger bargaining position in the streaming market — the first-sale doctrine that allowed any DVD owner to resell did not apply to streaming — they could have chosen not to license to Netflix and nipped it in the bud. But they granted licenses, and Netflix soon became the giant they hadn’t wanted to see arise. Why did the studios act against their own interests? If they could have collectively agreed not to license to Netflix, the result would have been different. But they couldn’t. At first only Viacom relented, licensing archived Beavis and Butt-head episodes. One show, it reasoned, could not a streaming giant make. But then everyone followed that logic. It wasn’t that the content providers didn’t see what was happening; it was that they couldn’t coordinate. It’s why newspapers let Google crawl their content for Google News. It’s why they handed content to Facebook for its Instant Articles format last year. So, too, with the recent political campaign. If every media outlet had ignored Trump’s rallies and rhetoric, it would have paid handsomely for one outlet to cover them. But once one did cover them, no others could afford not to. These events coalesced dramatically toward the end of the campaign, when Trump announced a press conference in which he would ostensibly make a major announcement about President Obama’s birth certificate (a lie that he had prolonged that had found traction in media coverage several years back). Nearly every media outlet showed up. How could they not cover a major announcement by a presidential candidate? But it was a sham — there was no real announcement, other than that there would be no more announcements on the subject. This is the prisoner’s dilemma of reporting amid competition: Following your self-interest does not always further the collective good. The situation generated one of the most dispiritingly candid statements ever from a media executive: Early in 2016, when the head of CBS was asked about the disproportionate attention given to Trump, he quipped, “It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS.” The network wasn’t alone. Cable news outlets enjoyed similar gains in 2016, marking it as their best year ever. Meanwhile, public trust in the press reached its lowest level in history. The Demand Side: Consumers Consume What They Want To One of the longest-standing debates in marketing is not whether advertising works, but how it does. One view is that marketing persuades consumers to purchase. Hear a song once, and you may not like it; hear it repeatedly, and you’ll start to, regardless of how good or bad it is (hence the phrase “all publicity is good publicity”). Others argue that marketing merely increases awareness without altering beliefs. By this reasoning, repeated exposure to a song that doesn’t match your taste might make you less likely to buy it. Does media reporting change what we believe, or do our preferences shape what media we choose to watch in the first place? Most research indicates that the latter is central: Our preexisting preferences largely determine what media we watch. One of the most reliable findings in the study of television entertainment is that viewers watch programs whose characters are like themselves. Older people watch shows featuring older characters, younger viewers watch shows featuring younger ones; the same goes for gender, ethnicity, and income. A similar effect is seen in news: We watch outlets whose reporting is consistent with our beliefs. Viewers who identify with the right are more likely to watch Fox, while left-leaning people are more likely to watch MSNBC. Similar differences apply to intra-network program choices, since programs on the same network can differ in their positioning. These patterns in news-watching would be puzzling if all that news providers did was provide verifiably objective information. But like entertainment programs, news programs and channels differ in their positioning, in the way they report information (often referred to as slant), and in what information they report (agenda setting). News positioning matters — viewers watch news programs and channels whose positions match their tastes and beliefs. This pattern of sorting on beliefs is amplified over time by various additional factors. The first is competition among media, which has increased as digital technologies have led to a vast number of new media outlets, each catering to more-niche tastes. The second is viewers’ confirmation bias, which leads us to reject valid information that is not consistent with our beliefs. Confirmation bias is deeply rooted in human behavior. It affects not just how we process information but who we associate with, creating “filter bubbles.” These bubbles are further reinforced by website algorithms designed to personalize the information we receive based on our past behaviors. Persuasive effects of the media also serve to solidify these bubbles. (And even small persuasive effects can have large effects in close elections.) Each factor increases viewer polarization, which on certain measures has reached unprecedented levels. Together, they shape how we respond to bias in the media. Consider the debate over left and right media bias, which goes back several decades and has grown in intensity over time. Part of what makes discussions of bias so thorny is that we almost never agree on what bias is. Both the debate and studies tend to focus on what the media reports — on content. But studies show that content is not the only place where bias lives. In experiments, when two people with different beliefs view exactly the same content, their perceptions of bias differ. Add it all up, and the implications are profound. First, we watch what we believe, but what we don’t watch, we don’t believe. This is the effect of sorting based on beliefs. Second, negative coverage can have unintended consequences. Hear a source you don’t trust, and when it reports something inconsistent with your beliefs, you’ll discount that thing even more. (The rare exception is when events are incontrovertibly verifiable — for example, the question of who said what on the Access Hollywood tape.) During the election season, more newspapers endorsed Clinton than any presidential candidate in U.S history. Papers with a tradition of endorsing Republicans endorsed her; papers with a tradition of not endorsing a candidate did, too. But none of it mattered; editorial content was essentially irrelevant. Third, and for the same reason, charges of media bias can actually help an outlet. The more your favorite channel is alleged to be biased by people you disagree with, the more you’ll watch it. Trump wasn’t the first to see this phenomenon: In Fox News’s early days, senior executives often acknowledged that charges of bias appeared to help them. And it isn’t specific to right-leaning voters. After the election, when Trump tweeted complaints about the New York Times and Vanity Fair, both outlets saw a rise in subscriptions. Charges of bias harden beliefs and reinforce polarization. Particularly sobering is that all this has nothing do with the much-lamented problem of fake news. Get rid of all verifiably fake news, as Facebook and others certainly should, and filter bubbles, polarization, and charges of media bias will remain. Where Does This Leave Us? Three forces combine to create the media coverage of political campaigns we observe today: connected media, which spreads messages faster than traditional media; fixed costs and advertising-reliant business models in traditional media, which amplify sensational messages; and viewers’ news consumption patterns, which leads to people sorting across media outlets based on their beliefs and makes messages they already agree with far more effective. Each reinforces the others. Without these enabling factors, even the best marketing campaign would go nowhere, and fake news or leaked information from cyberattacks would have little effect. Fair questions have been raised about the lack of investigative journalism early in the campaign, false equivalencies in reporting, and the use of paid campaign operatives as experts on television news. But digital technology and business incentives exerted more influence over the media coverage than editorial decisions and missing voices did. The ratings bubble had as much impact as filter bubbles did. The forces at work here — the search for profitability, competition, and self-interest — are things we embrace as profoundly American. Competition in the media leads to efficiency as well as to checks and balances — all good things. But it fails to internalize the externalities from profitable but sensational coverage. It leads to differentiation and more voices (also good, and what’s been the focus of regulatory efforts) but also to fragmentation, polarization, and less-penetrable filter bubbles (dangerous). It’s tempting to stretch the analysis between marketing and politics too far. They are different in important respects. Most notable, in marketing you can win through strategies that exploit the big-event bias of media (through attention-grabbing rhetoric) and the beliefs of consumers (through allegations that discredit your competitors). These strategies draw in consumers who are right for your brand. But in presidential politics, the same approach is incredibly risky because when you win, you serve everyone, not just those who “purchased your product.” Despite these differences, the same economics of information supply-and-demand that shape digital strategies in business are doing so in politics. Which leads to my conclusion: Even if we could somehow push “reset,” we would have to expect the same sort of coverage that we got. The problems are too deep and structural for anything else. What’s the way forward? There are no easy answers to the question. This analysis mainly points to solutions that won’t work. Voluntary efforts at restraint by well-meaning journalists won’t work, because of advertising-based business models and competition. Eliminating fake news won’t change the fact that voters ignore ideas contrary to their beliefs. And it won’t solve the media’s structural challenges or change its incentives. Media companies, their regulators, and their customers — all of us — have to look for ways to confront these challenges. The stakes could not be higher.

22 декабря 2016, 17:30

Zacks Value Investor Highlights: Vanguard All-World ex-US small cap ETF, Embraer Air, Toll Brothers, JC Penney and Kohl's

Zacks Value Investor Highlights: Vanguard All-World ex-US small cap ETF, Embraer Air, Toll Brothers, JC Penney and Kohl’s

22 декабря 2016, 01:33

Are the Most Hated Stocks the Best Values?

Value stocks are out there in 2017 but you may not like where you have to find them.

Выбор редакции
28 ноября 2016, 21:19

All The Best 2016 Cyber Monday Fashion Deals You Need

While many shoppers use Cyber Monday to score deals on gadgets and big-ticket tech items, fashionistas can also save big on clothing and jewelry. Take a look at the designers and retailers below for the best Cyber Monday fashion deals.   Aritzia Aritzia’s Cyber Monday sale is taking up to 50 percent off online orders.  Ann Taylor Get 50 percent off everything at Ann Taylor in stores and online using the code CYBER50. Anthropologie Anthropologie’s 24-hour online exclusive sale takes 20 percent off full-price items and offers free shipping on orders over $150.  Athleta Enjoy 20 percent off your Athleta purchase when you use the code RECHARGE.  Banana Republic Banana Republic is offering 50 percent off sitewide on Cyber Monday ― no code required. Bloomingdale’s Take 25 percent off a large selection of regular and sale-price items at Bloomingdale’s. Total savings can range up to 60 percent. Online shoppers can also get free shipping and free returns.  Coach Get up to 50 percent off select styles and shop over 125 online exclusive sales. Cole Haan Enjoy 40 percent off everything when you shop Cole Haan in stores or online on Cyber Monday. Express Express is offering 50 percent off plus free shipping on items sitewide. This deal excludes gift cards and featured brands. Forever21 Get 21 percent off your order and free shipping when you shop Forever21 online this Cyber Monday. Gap Score a whopping 50 percent off everything at Gap.com when you use the code CYBMON. H&M H&M has several offers this Cyber Monday. If your purchase exceeds $30, take 20 percent off with the code 5144. You’ll also receive free shipping. If your purchase totals over $50, use the code 0275 to receive 25 percent off your order, plus free shipping. For orders over $100, insert the code 8284 to receive 30 percent off and free shipping.   Intermix Take 30 percent off select full price items and 40 percent off designer sale items on Cyber Monday. Shipping is free. J.Crew J.Crew will take 40 percent off your order in stores and online when you use the code MONDAY. They are also offering free shipping. J.Crew Factory J.Crew Factory is offering 60 percent off everything except Crewcuts styles and men’s suiting, which are 50 percent off. Get an extra 40 percent off clearance, as well as free shipping. JC Penney For orders of $100 or more, enjoy 33 percent off at JC Penney this Cyber Monday. For orders under $100, you’ll receive 25 percent off. Use the code TOSAVE23 at checkout.  L.K. Bennett Enjoy 40 percent off select L.K. Bennett lines on Cyber Monday. There is no code required. Madewell Madewell is taking 25 percent off your entire purchase when you use the code CYBERMONDAY at checkout. Moda Operandi Moda Operandi’s Designer Sale is taking up to 65 percent off their sale items. Shoppers can also get an extra 30 percent off when they use the code EXTRA30 at checkout.  Net-A-Porter Get up to 50 percent off sale styles when you shop Net-A-Porter on Cyber Monday.  Old Navy Score 50 percent off sitewide and receive a pair of free cozy socks when you use the code COZY on any online purchase. Sperry Save 50 percent on select styles when you use the code CYBER50. Swarovski Add some bling to your wardrobe with Swarovski’s Cyber Monday deal. The company is offering 50 percent off site-wide. Urban Outfitters Urban Outfitters will take $15 off your order of $75+ and $50 off your order of $150+ on Cyber Monday. The Huffington Post may receive a share from purchases made via links on this page. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

25 ноября 2016, 16:33

'Black Friday' Channel Checks Turn Red: "Store Traffic Is Subdued Across The Country"

Two days ago we reported that according to a troubling - for retailers - survey conducted by Reuters/Ipsos, nearly two thirds, or 63% of US adults, did not plan to shop on Black Friday. It is unclear what exactly is causing this sharp slump in US consumerism: according to Christopher Baldwin, CEO of BJ's Wholesale Club, one excuse is that "Black Friday is no longer a one-day event; it has turned into a multi-week event." Another possible reason is that shellshocked by soaring Obamacare premiums, US adults simply have far less disposable cash which to splurge on holiday trinkets. Confirming the pessimistic outlook on this holiday's spending season, Reuters reports that according to its own spot checks as well as those of reporters and industry officials, "store traffic remained subdued across the country." "Initial reports show it's steady and not very busy at stores around the country," said Craig Johnson, president at retail consultancy Customer Growth Partners. The firm deployed 18 people nationwide to observe customer traffic. Rain hurt shopping at stores in the Northeast, Johnson said, but some retailers like Best Buy and Wal-Mart saw improved customer traffic at stores across the country. At a JC Penney store in Manhattan, Terry Bodiford, visiting from South Carolina, said he did not feel deals were better than he had found online over the past few weeks. Macy's and Best Buy on Chicago's Magnificent Mile were packed, but employees said most of the customers were tourists. The lack of enthusiasm is troubling. As Bloomberg reports, a perpetually optimistic National Retail Federation projects that about 137.4 million consumers will make purchases in stores or online over the four-day weekend that starts on Thanksgiving. The amount Americans have spent has declined in the last three years, slipping 26 percent from 2013 to an average of $299.60 per person last year, according to the trade group. To be sure, at least superficially, there should be good news: By most accounts, this holiday season is expected be a boon for retailers. Unemployment, gasoline prices and inflation are low, while wages, home values and the stock market continue to rise. Shoppers have the wherewithal to spend, and now retailers are hoping the holiday season will give them a reason to. Companies such as Kohl’s Corp., Gap Inc. and Barnes & Noble Inc. have said the U.S. presidential election was a major cause of consumers’ recent reluctance to open their wallets. With the outcome settled, they’re expecting the dollars to finally flow. Oh yes, the "I don't know who will be president so I won't buy that TV excuse." It was laughable when it first emerged, and it is even more laughable now that contrary to expectations, Americans are failing to unelash their purchasing animal spirits. Maybe now they are worried about Jill Stein's recount? And yet, nothing will dent the NRF's optimism, which expects that U.S. retail spending is expected to rise 3.6 percent to $655.8 billion in November and December as "retailers are poised to take full advantage of the Thanksgiving holiday period, now known by some as Black Week, which accounts for about 15 percent of holiday spending, according to the trade group." What is even more troubling is that physical retailers have made every possible concession to consumers to get them through the door and spend, spend, spend. J.C. Penney will open its doors at 3 p.m. on Thursday to reach shoppers before they tuck into their Thanksgiving feasts. EBay Inc. is trying to push the selling even earlier: It rebranded the day before Thanksgiving as Mobile Wednesday, using discounts to target traveling Americans. The sales will stretch through the weekend, with online and brick-and-mortar companies offering deals for Cyber Monday.   Investors are confident that the retail industry will see strong sales. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Retail Index has risen 4.9 percent so far in November and is on pace for its best monthly return since July. Retail stocks have outpaced the broader market since the U.S. presidential election, with the index up 4.7 percent since Nov. 8, compared with the broader S&P 500’s 3 percent rally. Historical studies indicate that elections affect the timing of retail sales rather than the overall volume, said Jerry Storch, CEO of Saks Fifth Avenue owner Hudson’s Bay Co.   “Hopefully, when we get to Black Friday, which really tolls the bell of holiday shopping, then the consumer will start looking forward to Christmas,” Storch said. Indeed, while actual revenues may be lacking, optimism is prevalent as retails hope that finally US consumer will beging spending. "That would be a welcome development for merchants that have yet to see a sales bump materialize. Dollar sales in the second week of November were 8 percent lower than in the same period a year earlier, according to research firm NPD Group. The decline was broad-based, too, with drops in apparel, toys, technology, athletic footwear and perfumes, the firm said." * * * However. what appears to be yet another year of pain for traditional, bricks and mortar retailers, will likely result in further gains for online vendors. According to Reuters, Chicago's State Street, a normally bustling shopping area popular with locals, was desolate. Shaun Smith, a 29-year-old restaurant manager, said he only came to the State Street store to take advantage of a deal for a $279 Westinghouse TV which is normally priced over $600.  "I will buy most of what I need online," he said. “If Amazon had everything, like everything you need in the world, I would buy everything from there,” said Oscar Viral, a 58-year-old chef in New York. “I wanted something from Macy’s, and I got on the Internet because they didn’t have it available in the store.” Confirming this, moments ago Amazon.com reported that Black Friday is already on pace to surpass Black Friday last year, in terms of items ordered, adding that In first few hours, Amazon customers have ordered >100k toys. Alexa devices are some of the best-selling items on Amazon.com so far today, including Echo Dot, Fire TV Stick with Alexa Voice Remote. The company also adds that Instant Pot 7-in-1 Multi-functional Cooker, Hasbro’s Pie Face Game, WeMo Switch Smart Plug (Works with Amazon Alexa) and Sennheiser HD 598 Headphones also among best- selling deals today. * * * Amazon is just one of many alternatives: for shoppers who are ready to spend, they have more ways than ever to do so, with retailers including Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Amazon.com Inc. offering exclusive deals to customers who download their mobile applications. Non-store sales may increase 7 percent to 10 percent this year, reaching as much as $117 billion, according to the NRF. Online sales account for the bulk of this measure, the group said. Online spending by U.S. bargain hunters climbed to above $1 billion by Thanksgiving evening, according to Adobe Digital Index, surging almost 14 percent from a year ago and reflecting a broader trend away from brick-and-mortar shopping. At the start of the first holiday shopping season since the election of Donald Trump as president on November 8, U.S. consumers loosened their purse strings and spent $1.15 billion online between midnight and 5 pm ET on Thursday, according to Adobe. The Adobe figure is collected from 21 billion online visits to 4,500 U.S. retail sites since Nov. 1. "We saw one of our strongest days ever online," Brian Cornell, chief executive of discount retailer Target, told reporters on Thursday evening. He added that online sales grew by double digits, without giving further details. "Online discounts are earlier and a lot bigger than last year," said Tamara Gaffney, principal research analyst at Adobe Digital Index. While the surge in online spending is unmistakable, the question is whether the 7-10% increase in online sales to $117 billion will offset what is shaping up to be another tepid holiday season for traditional retailers. If so, with the election now behind us, we wonder just what the next "latest and greatest" excuse used by retail CEOs will be on Q4 conference calls should the always delayed rebound in US spending fail to materialize yet again..

Выбор редакции
25 ноября 2016, 12:00

Perpetual Black Friday

Submitted by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com, Whatever numbers the retail association posts this weekend for Black Friday (typically overoptimistic assessments) are likely to be skewed this year even more. The New York Times expects a Less Frenzied Black Friday as Millennials opt to stay away. If you’re in the retail business in the United States, you probably really care about these two things: millennials and Black Friday.   But more and more, these two big drivers of the industry don’t mix inside stores — a dynamic that is reshaping one the country’s biggest shopping days.   Young people of all kinds, a coveted group for retailers because of their free-spending ways, are increasingly turning to their computers and phones to do their holiday shopping, spreading out more widely the days they open their wallets. Crowds on Friday, the unofficial kickoff of the holiday shopping season, will tilt older than a few years ago, and also, it appears, more cautious with their money.   As a result, the mix of retailers with high expectations for the day is changing quickly, skewing more toward dollar stores and discount retailers and toward essential products like food and cookware. And it is also making the day itself less and less important for the industry over all.   A decade ago, the day after Thanksgiving accounted for 6 percent of all shopping for the holiday season, according to Craig Johnson, the president of Customer Growth Partners, a research firm. This year, he expects shoppers to spend $27 billion on Black Friday, but that will account for only 4.3 percent of the spending this season. Over all, people are expected to spend $632 billion this holiday season, up from $607 billion last year, the company estimates. But for the first time, more than half that growth will come from online shopping, Mr. Johnson said.   At the same time, there is a distinct division in who is shopping online. More than half of baby boomers surveyed said they would do none of their holiday shopping online, according to a study by CivicScience, a market research company. Nearly 40 percent of those age 18 to 34 — the group known as millennials — will do most or all of their shopping on the web, and another 35 percent said they would shop both online and in-store.   That shift to online shopping has put more pressure on stores to offer deals good enough to bring people out into the cold. Less than a quarter of Americans plan to shop in stores on Black Friday, down from 28 percent two years ago, according to a survey by Bankrate.com, a website that tracks savings products. Does Black Friday Make Sense? The notion of Black Friday no longer makes much sense. Now, there are “Black Friday doorbusters happening all week long” More and more stores will be open Thanksgiving. Wal-Mart and Target will open stores a 6:00 PM. Next year it will likely be noon. Amazon has Black Friday deals on a variety of toys, electronics, and home goods starting on Wednesday. JC Penney is promoting $500 coupons. Sorry, it’s one per store. One in 10 will get $100, and everyone else $10. Can JC Penney really afford losing $100 on 10% of its customers. We will find out. Maybe there is another catch. Black Friday Month A few years ago people were waiting in line hours to be the first in the door for blockbuster deals. Perhaps some still do. But why bother? BGR reports “Black Friday is no longer a day, it’s now a month-long event on Amazon that kicks off today and runs straight through Cyber Monday and all the way to December 22.” The “today” in that story was Friday, November 18, a week ahead of the presumed black Friday. On November 21, Aarons put out a press release announcing “7 Days of Black Friday“. Perpetual Black Friday? Why Not? Why not start in September? Why not Perpetual Black Friday? I just did a website search. The name PerpetualBlackFriday.Com was not taken. I snagged it for $15 on GoDaddy. Why not?

15 ноября 2016, 17:45

How Are Retail ETFs Shaping up For Q3 Earnings?

Given the mixed earnings surprise prediction, the space might continue to see good trading in the days ahead as a big surprise from any industry player could be in store.

22 сентября 2016, 16:45

Predictable Schedules Are the New $15 Minimum Wage

Following San Francisco’s lead, Seattle and New York City have introduced initiatives to regularize workers’ hours.

Выбор редакции
19 сентября 2016, 14:01

Bear of the Day: Signet Jewelers (SIG)

Bear of the Day: Signet Jewelers (SIG)