NRF Shopping Numbers

The Mystery Pollster debunks and looks at the NRF's methodology for their Black weekend shopping numbers.

This is probably only of interest to me because I have been fielding questiosn all week about why my company's numbers are so much lower.

Since the press release is out - We're showing a 0.4% increase in spending over the entire weekend and a 0.9% decrease for Black Friday based on traffic figures and monthly estimates.

Update, here is our mention in the WSJ. Woo hoo:

The most bearish estimate came from ShopperTrak RCT Corp., a Chicago
market-research company with about 40,000 cameras in retail locations,
mostly shopping malls. (For more on the company's methods, see this print
Journal article12 from December 2004.) By counting foot traffic from the camera images and converting that into sales figures, the company reported a sales decrease of 0.9% on Friday, and an increase for the weekend of just 0.4%. As NRF and others have pointed out, ShopperTrak doesn't have cameras in the big
standalone retailers that opened early Friday and offered the biggest
discounts (like Wal-Mart), and therefore may have missed much of the sales
increases. But Bill Martin, ShopperTrak's co-founder and executive vice
president of sales, stood behind his company's estimates, and said that it
has proprietary methods to extrapolate from camera data to the entire retail
industry. He declined to provide details. In response to the NRF estimate,
Mr. Martin told me, "Double-digit increases are beyond any test of reason
that we can see in the marketplace."

Sorry for not posting about anything besides this, but work is eating up my life. Hopefully after the holidays I will have more time for posts about actually interesting things.

Black Friday Shopping

The numbers for this weekend are in (I should know I spent all weekend writing them up.)

Sales figures are down or up depending on who you talk to, the NRF is posting a gain in sales of 22% this year based on national survey data. (4,000 responders or so)

ShopperTrak is showing a 0.5% decline in sales for the total weekend based on traffic and other econometric data. They also reported a 1.4% decline in national retail traffic. This is based on counts of traffic and other econometric data. (full disclosure, I work there)

The NRF numbers are very optimistic, so far however the numbers in their release don't add up. There must be some interesting factoid I am not privy to to make these numbers work. (thanks to my boss for some of this analysis and the press release which I can't find a link to online)

Their press release says we should have seen 145 million shoppers over the weekend, but their numbers don't add up.

60 million on Friday (estimated)
52.8 million on Saturday (estimated)
22 million on Sunday (same as in '04)
Total = 134.8 million.
That is a difference of 10.2 million shoppers (145 million - 134.8 million).

And then their sales figure is 27.1 Billion dollars, and they are saying on average that consumers spent 302.81. But if 134.8 million people spent 302.81 dollars that would put us at 40.8 billion dollars. Which is a big difference. Their is clearly some other factor they look at when calculating spending, I wonder what it is.

Also they seem very high and it is likely that consumers overstated their purchases in the survey. Surveys as I may have mentioned before, are not the best measuring tools available. (Uhh they suck)

It will be interesting to see how the numbers are revised over the week.

Since when is wanting a reasonable work week a women's issue? I guess it is one of the major things frequently brought up when discussing why there are fewer female senior executives. Women want (Horror of Horrors) a family, and a life, and that is just unreasonable if you want to be successful.

But Fortune has an article today that points out that shockingly men would actually like to have lives too:

Our new survey of senior FORTUNE 500 male executives offers surprising
answers. Fully 84% say they'd like job options that let them realize their
professional aspirations while having more time for things outside work; 55% say
they're willing to sacrifice income. Half say they wonder if the sacrifices
they've made for their careers are worth it. In addition, 73% believe it's
possible to restructure senior management jobs in ways that would both increase
productivity and make more time available for life outside the office. And 87%
believe that companies that enable such changes will have a competitive
advantage in attracting talent. Other interviews suggest that the younger a male
executive is, the more likely he is to say he cares about all of this.

Of course there's a roadblock to reform: fear. FORTUNE's survey found
that even though most senior-level men want better options, nearly half believe
that for an executive to take up the matter with his boss will hurt his
career.

Don't know much about this survey, but it isn't exactly a revolutionary concept that people would want time for friends family and extracurriculars. Even Men, The workhorse of the human race don't salivate a the idea of spending 47% of their life (an 80 hour work week) at their job.

But seriously, I am glad that there is a push for a more humane work week. Fortunately I am in touch with my own laziness and would never try for a job that required more than say 50 hours per week. Sadly not all people are so lucky. What's the point of making money, if you never have time to spend it?

It is good to see that Fortune is trying to push the 40 hour week off of the "women's issue" table. Though it is sortof surprising that it was on our table in the first place.

Not just a City in China

MSNBC has this Oh so helpful filler article on tipping today.

I thought I would add some wisdom that I accrued over the weekend via my roommate. The tip for a lap-dance is typically between 10 and 20 dollars.

No wonder stripping is such a popular occupation.

The Irony is that they called it Intelligence

Kevin Drum posts about the Intelligence leading up to the Iraq war and how dissent against this intelligence was suppressed. Whether or not it was intentionally suppressed remains to be seen.

But IMHO whether the suppression of dissenting voices was intentional or not is irrellevent. The evidence as shown in Kevin's post points to a deep seated problem within the White House and the surrounding Intelligence community. This problem is the same problem that is has been studied and identified as being responsible for the Challenger Disaster as well as The Bay of Pigs Invasion during the Kennedy administration. It is called Group Think, and has already been identified as a problem within the Intelligence Community at large.

The question that should be asked is how much of the suppression of intelligence and groupthink leading up to the Iraq war was a symptom of attitudes within the White House. Regardless of intentionality intelligence was suppressed and I think there should be a push from outside the White House to show that not only are they making actual improvements to the intelligence community but also to the culture within the White House.

Unfortunately recent events such as the lack of Federal response to Hurricane Katrina did little to alleviate my fears about the level of incompetancy within this administration. So maybe it isn't REALLY their job, but when one of my coworkers doesn't do their job, I do it for them for the good of the company. (And then I point out to my boss that it wasn't really my job.....) And lets not even mention the Harriet Miers debacle. (Though some would argue it was a political move, and it may well have been.)

When it comes down to it, the President is an employee of the citizens of the United States, and he has a responsibility to show that he is doing his job to the best of his ability. We should not be criticized for criticizing him. We hired him to do a job, and he should take pride in doing it well, and showing us what a good job he's doing. And if he isn't doing a good job, well, he should thank his lucky stars it is a contract position.

Shinobi v. Mono

It was a long and arduous battle, but I have emerged, scarred, exhausted, victorious.

My attention span is still too short to blog. I'm back in the office today. I long for sleep.

Holy Crap!

AMAZING New Family Guy Episode.

The episode is all about mocking the FCC. There are no words. This epsidode makes up for the existance of American Dad.

OW

This message has been brought to you by Halls Defense, citrus flavored.

How is it possible for me to feel this crappy and still not be running a fever? I didn't know that I actually had this many lymph nodes that could swell, this is ridiculous.

I don't actually have anything of value to say at the moment, but the non drowsy sudafed I took wont let me sleep, so I just wanted to share my misery with someone who isn't my roomate cause I'm sure he will be sharing my misery here within a week or so. I wonder how well sudafed mixes with tylenol PM, I'll do some research and get back to you.

Update 3:41AM: Does this mean I'm live blogging my illness? Cause that is sad. The Tylenol PM Sudafed coctail has not worked. I am wide fucking awake and in serious pain. WOO HOOOOOOOO. I don't know how I'm going to go to work tomorrow.

Update 8:07AM: Not actually going to work. Wooooooooooo. Time to go back to sleep. I might actually post something of substance later.

Update Day 2 1:30PM: The doctor is testing me for mono and they gave me painkillers. You can actually see my lymph nodes without even trying to look for them.

Update Day 2 9:16PM: Picked up my laptop from work. I asked the doc if I could work and she said "uhhh... not with people you like." So I'm working from home which will be a new experience for me. I just took my first awesomely cool bright Pink pain pill which my med student friend informs me is also a muscle relaxer. I haven't eaten anything solid in 24 hours so this should be a fun night.

Update Day 3 8:30PM: Officially Mono. Pain pills are amazing.

On Schooling's Failure And Journalism's Doom

Tall Dark and Mysterious posted aboutme to this article from a University Newspaper yesterday. Rather than quote the whole thing here before I expound on its ridiculousness I will request that you go read and then come back. Are you back? Good. Take a deep breath, it will be okay.

So, the problem this fine young writer seems to have with the education system is that it is forcing her to take classes in things unrelated to her career. Her career in journalism. The thing that confuses me about this, is that Journalism isn't really a topic, so much as a set of skills that give one the ability to report information effectively to ones audience. So, if you think about it, is anything REALLY unrelated to journalism? What if you have to write a peice about the guy who won the Nobel Prize in Physics? Wouldn't it behoove you to have at least a HighSchool level grasp of physics? Or Statistics! Which she even mentions in her post. Everyone hates Statistics, I know this, but if you don't understand it how can you effectively report on polls? (Or in her case the wildly innaccurate surveys that people send in to the magazines.)

You can't. I truly think that an effective journalist has to understand their subject matter as well as possible in order to explain it well to the reader. Fortunately since all Stacey with an e y wants is to work at Glamour magazine the most complex concept she will need to grasp is what color eyeshadow looks good on what skin tones. Sadly though I don't think it is uncommon for journalists to become journalists because they are too lazy to learn other subjects and this is reflected in the quality of the reporting we are generally exposed to. (Though there are some truly exceptional reporters out there, unfortunately I think they are a minority.) Thank god the age of the blogger is begining.

But what about non journalists who feel this way about the subjects they are being forced to learn? Well I can relate, sometimes you have to learn stuff in school that is boring. Really boring. Like that class they made me take on writing. I hated it, but I did my best and tried to learn, even though it brought down my GPA. And now I try to remember what I learned in that class every day when I write my blog, and as you can see, I don't. Though it might not be fun to learn some things, I have never really wished I hadn't bothered to learn a thing, though I have frequently wished the opposite.

So while Stacy's desire not to learn stuff is understandable, it isn't really a problem with school as she seems to think it is. It is in fact her own fault for being too lazy to learn things just because she isn't interested in them. Sometimes in life you have to do things you don't want to do, and just trust that someone older and wiser than you thinks you should know this stuff. At the very least it will help you learn how to learn boring stuff, and who knows you might even find it interesting.

Edumucation

To continue with todays apparent Morality theme. Moon has an interesting post discussing the two issues of Creationism and Sex Education in schools. (I will attempt to sum up his points here, but you should really read his post to get the nuance.)

While parents seek to have creationism taught in the (science) classroom based upon their claimed right to have their convictions reinforced at school, manifesting their belief that it's not enough to instil principles of faith outside of school but that their children's godliness requires never being exposed to any competing account of life's origin without immediate strident opposition, so do other parents seek to have (full and candid; perhaps encouraging abstinence, but not turning a blind eye to its widespread eschewal by children) sexual education taught in schools for the same reason, to have what they deem important reinforced in the classroom.

I tend to disagree with Moon on this. Though I think his mind is in the right place. I think the fundemental problem with his argument lies in the fact that we are talking about two different types of education. One type of education presents a student with a series of facts, other types of information and allows the student to use these facts to accomplish goals. (math is like this, 1+1=2, 2+2=?) The other type of education is presenting something and stating that it is true and then the students like good little foot soldiers will believe this until told otherwise.

Sex education is not about indoctrinating students for sex, but about giving them tools to make informed decisions when the time comes.

Creationism on the other hand, if taught well would be a good excersize for students on understanding how the scientific method does not work. (For instance, starting with a conclusion and finding data to back it up, rejecting all other information.) Otherwise it will just be a confusing peice of information that those who go on to college will have to unlearn (There are already SO many of those) and that those who don't go on to college probably wont remember anyway.

But truly, if parents are so concerned about the education of their children then they should educate them. There is nothing preventing any parent from giving their children literature on creationism, or talking about it at the dinner table. Just as there is nothing preventing any parent from discussing sex and its dangers with their kids. In the end, the real problem is that parents want to outsource their jobs to teachers. And if you outsource it, it just never seems to get done right.

Morality

Jody over at PolySciFi has a post about the Kansas State Court and its ruling that punishing homosexual coduct more than heterosexual conduct was wrong.

The Kansas Supreme Court on Friday unanimously struck down a state law that punished underage sex more severely if it involved homosexual acts, saying "moral disapproval" of such conduct is not enough to justify the different treatment.

While I would prefer a law that treated sex as sex, it appears to me that the KSC is effectively saying that morals cannot be considered a basis for law. This would represent a serious challenge to my legal philosophy and I dare say Kansans' legal philosophies as well as most of our readership's legal philosophies.

I understand that many people in this country have a strict moral code by which they lead their lives. And I would be lying if I said that I was not one of those people. But my moral code is probably quite different from Jody's moral code. Just as Hitler's moral code was different from Ghandi's. (You might disagree with this, and if you do then I will refer you to Pyrrho's post on Moral relativism and the subsequent debate. It is not a topic I intend to address here in any depth, I will leave that to the wise philosophers.)

While morals will always play some part in the laws of any country, it is important that the courts and the legislature not attempt to force morality onto a free society, because then that society will no longer be free. It is my opinion that the laws of a country exist to protect its citizens from harm, not to force them to be "good" people by someone's standard. Many laws serve important purposes without touching on morality, such as laws that protect individuals from physical harm, (such as laws against dueling or murder) or protect those who cannot protect themselves (such as laws against bestiality or pedophilia). But to base a system of law and judgement on what one group of people considers "moral" is to base it on a moving foundation.

Society has its own way of punishing what it sees as immorality. Gays are still subject to extreme predijuce and hate in some parts of the country. Extra legal persecution of them for their supposedly more immoral actions is unnecessary.

(Also For the Record: I oppose the Miers nomination. Not that anyone will be surprised or even care.)

Yeah!

Charles at Obsidian Wings has a post about what conservatives should be doing. It is good and stuff.

To quote the bum on the corner outside my office building:

"Happy Friday Everybody!"

Miers

I haven't posted much on Miers because I am so disgusted I don't even have the energy to be outraged.

But today Progress For America sent me this little jewel. I have no idea how I got on their mailing list. They were hoping to convince me that Harriet Miers is just as good as John Marshall, Byron White, Clarence Thomas and William Renquist by writing her name next to theirs a bunch of times and showing how similar they are.

Gee. I was sooooo wrong. How could I not have been convinced by their mindless propaganda before this.

(Unrelated Note: Fuck the Astros, Go SOX!)

Back to Busch Stadium

My Hero:













Go CARDS!!!!!!

Would Hil be better off without Bill?

Digby pointed out some amazing journalism today. Apparently there is some matrimonal fracas in the Clinton household. Really Shocking.

But it made me wonder, would Hillary have a better chance in 2008 without Bill? I am torn on this, because Pres. Clinton is clearly very popular with Dems and so he might be a useful face on the campaign trail. On the other side of the coin some right wingers hate him with the fire of a thousand suns, and some might equate a vote for Hillary as a vote for another term with Bill as president. (Which may or may not be a good thing depending on who you talk to)Would ridding herself of her hubby give her a better chance to ingratiate herself with the center right? And would it destroy her chances with Value Voters and Clinton lovers?

Also, does a single woman have a better chance at the presidency than a married one? Harriet Miers is unmarried, and Condi Rice's bio says nothing about a husband (does she have one? anybody?). Arguably the reason Miers and (possibly) Rice aren't married could be because they chose to focus on career instead of family. But Mrs. Clinton already has a family, though her daughter is now fully grown. Would splitting up absolutely ruin her chances? Or would she gain some respect for striking out on her own from her filandering husband? Also would being sans-man help the American public deal with the pesky "she's a woman" issue without having to tackle the whole "First Gentleman" issue?

I have no idea. But it is interesting to think about.

Hillary Clinton v. Condi Rice race in 2008: the closest political pundits will ever get to a real catfight. Heh.

Quality:Advertising::

Theory: The quality of anything in inversely proportional to the amount of advertising for that thing.

Proof in progress: Elizabethtown

If I could go one day without seeing an ad for this movie, I'd be happy. The first time I saw the preview I was vaguely interested in a "both of those people are attractive enough to distract me for 1.5 hours" kind of way. But after 2 weeks of constant innundation I know there is no way this movie can be good.

Also further proof this movie sucks arrived when every time I tried to close a browser window and brought my mouse too close to my IM window a big picture of Orlando Bloom and Kirsten Dunst swooning at eachother appeared. And if there is an advert for it on my IM, then I KNOW it isn't going to be good. (See Also: America's Next Top Model)

The sad thing is that advertising like this works, I am so brainwashed by this point I will probably go see this stupid movie just so I can say "THAT MOVIE SUCKED" every time I see an ad for it. (which will no doubt be ever 5 minutes for the next week at least, and then every 2 minutes when the DVD comes out in a month)

Milky Statistics

2% approval among black people? 2% is how much fat I like in my milk, not how many black people like the president.

Mystery Pollster debunks this number today with his usual deftness. Apparently the 2% number is based on a sub sample of only 89 African-Americans. Which might actually be a weighted number, meaning they really interviewed less than 89 people and then gave them extra weight so that the sample was consistant with the population of the US. So we might actually be talking about 2% of 40 people. Not exactly compelling evidence that this is representative of of the opinion of the entire population of African-Americans.

His post is worth a read, especially at the end where he points out stupidity at HuffPo. (As if they have anything else there.)

Silence

Sorry for the sporadic bloggyness.

I am having trouble feeling like posting about things because I mostly don't care. And the stuff I do care about other people are already doing a better job of posting on. So I figure I'll leave it to the experts.

If I stop posting long enough will the number of people reading this blog go negative?

Hopefully we wont find out.

GO!!!!

In the unlikely event that you are a reader of this blog and you have not already seen Serenity. here is the first 10 minutes (via Bill at INDC).

Now, Go f-ing see it. It is one of the best movies I've seen in ages, especially of the science fiction variety.

And if you don't go see it, and they don't make the sequels because of you, I'm going to hunt you down and use big swords on you.

Fuck Stanford

We'll get em next year!