Rating

A Truly Embarrassing Chart For Wall Street Stock Analysts

Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/this-chart-shows-why-wall-street-stock-ratings-are-a-joke-2012-2


Only five percent of ratings on companies in the S&P 500 are sell ratings.

That’s right: 95 percent of ratings tell investors to hold or buy and only 5 percent say you should sell.

The following chart comes from FactSet via Cullen Roche:

chart

Henry Blodget recently offered a few reasons why you rarely see sell ratings:

  • Most stocks–especially growth stocks–generally trend up over the long haul, so saying SELL often means betting against the odds and/or making a short-term timing call.
  • Stocks with excellent fundamentals don’t often go down just because they’re “expensive”–instead, they just get more expensive. So saying “SELL” based solely on valuation often sets the analyst up to be wrong.
  • The lack of SELL ratings makes SELL ratings sound like a complete condemnation of the company, to the point where it seems the analyst has a vendetta against it. The more polite way to tell people to sell, most folks on Wall Street whisper, is to say “hold”–or just ignore the stock altogether.
  • The issuance of a SELL rating often drives a stock down, hurting investors who own it. These investors will not usually say “thank you.” Instead, they’ll want your head.
  • Most investors are long-only, meaning they can only buy stocks, not short them. Thus, “SELL” ratings are only useful to hedge funds and investors who already own stocks.
  • Most companies refuse to talk to analysts who hit them with SELL ratings, thus reducing the analyst’s ability to gather information about the company.

Please follow Clusterstock on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, February 15th, 2012 news No Comments

Barely Anyone Watched The World Series Last Night, But It Still Got Twice As Many Viewers As Football

Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/mlb-rangers-cardinals-world-series-ratings-lowest-ever-for-a-game-5-2011-10


Bud Selig

Last night’s overnight rating of 10.0 was the lowest-ever for a World Series game five, and was down from the 10.1 overnight rating for Sunday night’s game four.

Still, the 10.0 rating easily outpaced the Monday Night Football matchup between the Baltimore Ravens and Jacksonville Jaguars that pulled an overnight rating of 5.8. That tied the record for the lowest rating ever for a Monday Night Football game.

When asked about Major League Baseball’s low World Series ratings prior to last night’s game, commissioner Bud Selig continued to push the company line. “I can show you all the numbers. Baseball is more popular than ever,” said Selig.

Luckily for Selig and Major League Baseball, the World Series will have a game six and won’t have to worry about competing with any NFL games. Ratings for game six and a potential game seven should soar.

Please follow Sports Page on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:




drag2share – drag and drop RSS news items on your email contacts to share (click SEE DEMO)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, October 25th, 2011 news No Comments

Branding is still a useful activity? Reach and frequency is still a useful metric?

Source: http://community.microsoftadvertising.com/blogs/analytics/archive/2009/07/06/getting-back-to-basics-why-web-advertising-needs-traditional-media-metrics.aspx

Getting Back to Basics – Why Web Advertising Needs Traditional Media Metrics

posted Mon, Jul 06 2009

by Young Bean Song MSFT

Trying to build a brand marketing campaign without traditional target reach and Gross Rating Points (GRP) estimates is like trying to diet without the concept of calories. The analogy of dieting and advertising works on many levels.

continue reading Young Bean Song…

My response…

RE: “Patty Wakeling, an industry veteran who leads Unilever’s Global Media Insights Group, recently reminded me that in today’s retail environment, the choice between the branded versus the generic option are separated by less than an inch on the shelf. It was a sobering reminder of the power of branding, and why so many companies are willing to spend so much to build their brand equity.” But in the case of Whole Foods’ own store brand, 365, many people perceive it to be better than branded options (or at least equivalent). So they tend to choose to buy the 365 product instead. In other cases, what used to be brand equity/value is now perceived as an undesirable premium. Take another example — the rise and popularity of Trader Joe’s where 80% of the products sold are house brands. Consumers care about the product and its quality and value; consumers no longer care (as much) about the brand that is slapped on the package if the contents inside suck.

A brand used to be a mark or symbol burned onto a cow’s butt to signify what ranch it came from. And if people knew the ranch had a good reputation for raising healthy cows, they would buy the cow. The brand helped simplify the purchase decision. These days, advertisers carefully manicure “brand messages” and shout them at target consumers using various one-way channels such as TV, print, radio, and banner ads. But like Scott Cook, Intuit, said, “A brand is no longer wht we tell the consumer its – its what the consumers tell each other it is.” So branding as we know it (advertisers shouting claims at target customers) is less relevant or even unwanted entirely by modern consumers. And brand equity, which used to be a large, fungible item on the balance sheet (technically known as “good will”) may be far less valuable today. Consumers don’t just take the advertisers’ word for it; they will do their own research and buy what is actually valuable and useful.

Companies that actually develop useful and valueable products or services that consistently deliver on their promise — Apple, Drobo, Zappos, JetBlue, etc. — can even cut out their brand advertsing entirely because their brand IS their consistent delivery on the promise of value and usefulness. For example, has Apple EVER claimed they have awesome design and are easy to use? NEVER! But their products consistently deliver on those 2 attributes. So that’s how modern users would describe Apple’s brand to their friends.

A “brand” is earned over time. “Branding” is no longer a useful activity (and furthermore it is damned expensive — media costs — and ineffective — because it is the advertiser making claims that modern consumers don’t believe, assuming they saw the ad in the first place).

From AdAge — people buying private label, generics, or store brands (quality of which are pretty comparable to name brands)

Private Labels winning the battle of the brands
http://adage.com/article?article_id=134791

What do you think?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, July 8th, 2009 digital 3 Comments

Dr. Augustine Fou is Digital Consigliere to marketing executives, advising them on digital strategy and Unified Marketing(tm). Dr Fou has over 17 years of in-the-trenches, hands-on experience, which enables him to provide objective, in-depth assessments of their current marketing programs and recommendations for improving business impact and ROI using digital insights.

Augustine Fou portrait
http://twitter.com/acfou
Send Tips: tips@go-digital.net
Digital Strategy Consulting
Dr. Augustine Fou LinkedIn Bio
Digital Marketing Slideshares
The Grand Unified Theory of Marketing