Sunday, June 25, 2006
Sunday, June 11, 2006
What part of anonymous don't you understand?
I don’t know if journalism hit a new low, or if someone is having fun at readers’ expense, but the following grabbed my attention:
This bizarre should’ve-hit-the-spike boo-boo is taken from a feature in the June 2006 edition of Brooklyn’s Bloc Magazine, titled Williamsburg and The Mission District.
But the weirdness doesn’t end with the outing of a perhaps innocent, perhaps fictional, realtor (I can’t find any other reference to Ms Ware, any-ware! [geddit?]), the passage following that particular idiocy then goes on to detail how easy it is for landlords to raise rents. Wait a minute, isn’t that a sign of a sellers market. i.e., the seller has the relative power in the situation.
Somebody needs to retake Econ. 101.
I am, of course, available at my usual hourly rate.
“Increasingly, it’s a buyer’s market,” said Lila Ware, a successful Brooklyn real estate agent who spoke on condition of anonymity.[emphasis added]
This bizarre should’ve-hit-the-spike boo-boo is taken from a feature in the June 2006 edition of Brooklyn’s Bloc Magazine, titled Williamsburg and The Mission District.
But the weirdness doesn’t end with the outing of a perhaps innocent, perhaps fictional, realtor (I can’t find any other reference to Ms Ware, any-ware! [geddit?]), the passage following that particular idiocy then goes on to detail how easy it is for landlords to raise rents. Wait a minute, isn’t that a sign of a sellers market. i.e., the seller has the relative power in the situation.
Somebody needs to retake Econ. 101.
I am, of course, available at my usual hourly rate.
Sunday, May 21, 2006
Party-on, Yale Club
During the 2000 presidential campaign opponents liked to joke that George W. Bush had a pretty wild time partying while studying in the elite environs of Yale University.
Since then Bush quit drinking and got down to work. But it’s not so clear that other alumni of the Newhaven, Connecticut-based Ivy League school have followed suit.
It seems that members of the Yale Club of New York City, which resides in an elegant building on Vanderbilt Ave. right next to Grand Central Station, have been drinking up a storm. Documents filed with the IRS show that the club’s members, who are mainly graduates of Yale University, drank their way through beverages, including beer, wine and liquor as well as coffee and soft drinks, costing approximately $505,000 during 2004.
The lavish but hushed surroundings of the Yale Club’s second floor lounge might not look like party central – three sedate looking portraits of Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, as well as Bush junior, look down on members resting in deep leather couches. But perhaps that tranquility masks the fact that there seems to be a lot more boozing going on at the Yale Club than at the Club of a rival.
Members of the Harvard Club of New York City, which is which is also located in midtown Manhattan, chugged down a mere $387,000 for a similar period. That means that Yale Club members drank 30 percent more than did members of the Harvard Club.
But a simple comparison of raw numbers doesn’t give the Yale set enough credit by far. There are actually only half as many members of the Yale Club of New York, than there are of the Harvard Club, according to figures provided by member services at each organization.
The Yale Club boasts 10,000 members, who pay over $100 per month in subscriptions, and are also charged for each drink consumed. Not all club members are resident in New York City, or use the club house regularly. That compares with approximately 20,000 members at the Harvard Club.
When viewing the numbers it is important to remember that these are the wholesale costs, or what the Yale Club and Harvard Club each spent buying liquor and other beverages, rather than what they charged their well-heeled members. The actual retail value is likely to be much greater.
Anne McBride, of the Culinary Institute of America, notes that wine is typically marked up four times the cost when sold by the glass. Meaning that a $10 glass of wine may have only cost the restaurant and bar $2.50. And she says that other beverages, such as beer and liquor, provide even higher profit margins.
Chuck Hunt, executive vice president of the New York State Restaurant Association, says bar managers mark up alcoholic beverages other than wine by five times, meaning that a ten dollar whiskey may only have cost the restaurant only two dollars. He also notes that soft drinks typically have even higher profit margins.
Both the Harvard Club and the Yale Club are organized as not-for-profit organizations, and as such must make annual filings with the Internal Revenue Service detailing information about revenues and expenses. For calendar year 2004 the Yale Club raked in revenues of $23.4 million, versus $19.5 million for a similar period at the Harvard Club.
Business managers at the Yale Club, or the Harvard Club, did not return calls.
Since then Bush quit drinking and got down to work. But it’s not so clear that other alumni of the Newhaven, Connecticut-based Ivy League school have followed suit.
It seems that members of the Yale Club of New York City, which resides in an elegant building on Vanderbilt Ave. right next to Grand Central Station, have been drinking up a storm. Documents filed with the IRS show that the club’s members, who are mainly graduates of Yale University, drank their way through beverages, including beer, wine and liquor as well as coffee and soft drinks, costing approximately $505,000 during 2004.
The lavish but hushed surroundings of the Yale Club’s second floor lounge might not look like party central – three sedate looking portraits of Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, as well as Bush junior, look down on members resting in deep leather couches. But perhaps that tranquility masks the fact that there seems to be a lot more boozing going on at the Yale Club than at the Club of a rival.
Members of the Harvard Club of New York City, which is which is also located in midtown Manhattan, chugged down a mere $387,000 for a similar period. That means that Yale Club members drank 30 percent more than did members of the Harvard Club.
But a simple comparison of raw numbers doesn’t give the Yale set enough credit by far. There are actually only half as many members of the Yale Club of New York, than there are of the Harvard Club, according to figures provided by member services at each organization.
The Yale Club boasts 10,000 members, who pay over $100 per month in subscriptions, and are also charged for each drink consumed. Not all club members are resident in New York City, or use the club house regularly. That compares with approximately 20,000 members at the Harvard Club.
When viewing the numbers it is important to remember that these are the wholesale costs, or what the Yale Club and Harvard Club each spent buying liquor and other beverages, rather than what they charged their well-heeled members. The actual retail value is likely to be much greater.
Anne McBride, of the Culinary Institute of America, notes that wine is typically marked up four times the cost when sold by the glass. Meaning that a $10 glass of wine may have only cost the restaurant and bar $2.50. And she says that other beverages, such as beer and liquor, provide even higher profit margins.
Chuck Hunt, executive vice president of the New York State Restaurant Association, says bar managers mark up alcoholic beverages other than wine by five times, meaning that a ten dollar whiskey may only have cost the restaurant only two dollars. He also notes that soft drinks typically have even higher profit margins.
Both the Harvard Club and the Yale Club are organized as not-for-profit organizations, and as such must make annual filings with the Internal Revenue Service detailing information about revenues and expenses. For calendar year 2004 the Yale Club raked in revenues of $23.4 million, versus $19.5 million for a similar period at the Harvard Club.
Business managers at the Yale Club, or the Harvard Club, did not return calls.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Sad sad tale...
Plenty of people seem to be pretty upset about the sad tale of Jared Paul Stern and his alleged attempts to shakedown billionaire entrepreneur Ron Burkle. But why? The accusations, if true, would only take the lead from some awfully large and very legitimate businesses. Here’s how:
You will likely recall that Stern is the gossip-mongering New York Post freelancer who allegedly demanded that Burkle pony-up $220,000 in exchange for killing potentially scandalous stories that would otherwise be published in the Post’s scurrilous Page Six column. Stern says there was a misunderstanding and that he really only wanted investment capital for his clothing line company, Skull & Bones.
What struck me, however, was not so much the entrepreneurial audacity of Stern, or even that journalism may have hit a new low (it hasn’t, we still have Jayson Blair). Rather, I noted how similar the alleged scam seems to be to the business practices of some very large and legitimate U.S. businesses. The only major difference is that Stern seems to be thinking small in comparison.
Consider Richard Smith. He’s chairman and chief executive of Equifax, one the country’s three largest consumer credit rating agencies. Like the other two firms, Experian and TransUnion, Smith’s company makes money collecting and selling information on how you pay your bills to interested parties such as banks, credit card companies and potential employers.
It’s lucrative business. Last year’s revenue at Equifax totaled $1.4 billion. And Smith is doing a hell of a lot better than Stern. He only joined the company in September last year, but his 2005 pay package included $4.8 million in cash, plus another $2.9 million in stock. Not bad for four months work!
Now here’s the similarity with the New York Post scandal. While Stern was allegedly seeking to profit by trading in Burkle’s social character, Equifax, and the others, make money by dealing in your financial reputation.
The Stern-type offer is to let your reputation stay free of rumors, if you pay. Although I can’t be sure, I bet Stern would have honored the deal.
Contrast that with what Equifax offers customers. Company marketing geniuses know that damning information routinely appears on credit reports, much to your detriment. Therefore, they’ve created the idea of selling you information about yourself. For instance, an advertisement on the Equifax website screams, “Don't Let Identity Thieves Ruin Your Credit.” Then they offer to tell you if anyone is besmirching your good name for a mere $9.95 a month subscription.
There is no hint of irony that if credit agencies actually bothered to check out what they posted then you wouldn’t need any protection.
And that is why their deal is inherently much worse than Stern’s. These companies are quite happy to take the money from you and yet still keep bad-mouthing you to the world, even when what they say might not be true.
If you have any doubts, try getting a credit agency to fix inaccurate data.
You will likely recall that Stern is the gossip-mongering New York Post freelancer who allegedly demanded that Burkle pony-up $220,000 in exchange for killing potentially scandalous stories that would otherwise be published in the Post’s scurrilous Page Six column. Stern says there was a misunderstanding and that he really only wanted investment capital for his clothing line company, Skull & Bones.
What struck me, however, was not so much the entrepreneurial audacity of Stern, or even that journalism may have hit a new low (it hasn’t, we still have Jayson Blair). Rather, I noted how similar the alleged scam seems to be to the business practices of some very large and legitimate U.S. businesses. The only major difference is that Stern seems to be thinking small in comparison.
Consider Richard Smith. He’s chairman and chief executive of Equifax, one the country’s three largest consumer credit rating agencies. Like the other two firms, Experian and TransUnion, Smith’s company makes money collecting and selling information on how you pay your bills to interested parties such as banks, credit card companies and potential employers.
It’s lucrative business. Last year’s revenue at Equifax totaled $1.4 billion. And Smith is doing a hell of a lot better than Stern. He only joined the company in September last year, but his 2005 pay package included $4.8 million in cash, plus another $2.9 million in stock. Not bad for four months work!
Now here’s the similarity with the New York Post scandal. While Stern was allegedly seeking to profit by trading in Burkle’s social character, Equifax, and the others, make money by dealing in your financial reputation.
The Stern-type offer is to let your reputation stay free of rumors, if you pay. Although I can’t be sure, I bet Stern would have honored the deal.
Contrast that with what Equifax offers customers. Company marketing geniuses know that damning information routinely appears on credit reports, much to your detriment. Therefore, they’ve created the idea of selling you information about yourself. For instance, an advertisement on the Equifax website screams, “Don't Let Identity Thieves Ruin Your Credit.” Then they offer to tell you if anyone is besmirching your good name for a mere $9.95 a month subscription.
There is no hint of irony that if credit agencies actually bothered to check out what they posted then you wouldn’t need any protection.
And that is why their deal is inherently much worse than Stern’s. These companies are quite happy to take the money from you and yet still keep bad-mouthing you to the world, even when what they say might not be true.
If you have any doubts, try getting a credit agency to fix inaccurate data.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
