I have to point out this self-congratulatory piece of work from Seattle Times editor-at-large Mike Fancher. It serves as a sort of introduction to the “Home Values” series, and actually seems to sum up their goals pretty well.
Housing sticker shock used to take our collective breath away; now it seems to bring just a very deep sigh.The Seattle Times offered its first annual look at home prices in King and South Snohomish Counties in 2000, calling the report “Sticker Shock” to reflect how we all reacted to what was happening. In recent years, we’ve changed the name.
“I guess we are all over the shock now and have been calling it ‘Home Values’ the last couple of years,” said Becky Bisbee, Times business editor.
…
“This is one of those packages that only we do,” Bisbee said. “Anyone who owns a house or is thinking about buying or selling would find it fascinating and invaluable.
…
[Times Real Estate Reporter Elizabeth] Rhodes said the idea for today’s story was “based on the concern people have that the housing market is cooling, and the ‘bubble’ bursting. National stories are saying this. But all real estate is local, so it made sense to explain to readers what’s happening here. And economists say Seattle doesn’t have a ‘bubble.’“The bottom line is that appreciation may be falling, but house prices aren’t. They’re consistently up, something we’ve seen annually for at least two decades. That’s the proof that our market isn’t tanking,” she said.
It would appear that the Times has discovered a three-phase business plan in which step two is something other than ‘???’ …
- Provide data on the housing market.
- Spin data in as positive a light as possible.
- Profit!
Hey, whatever works I guess. I think it would do their readers a much better service if they provided access to the raw data, rather than just the pre-packaged maps and charts that they deem worthy of public consumption.
Then again, the readers aren’t really the customers, so much as they are the product that is being sold to the advertisers. I wonder who the Times’ biggest customers are?
(Mike Fancher, Seattle Times, 05.20.2007)
Joel » May 22, 2007 at 6:00 pm
I might be mistaken, but I thought the connotation of “massaging the numbers” was that you’re manipulating statistics and data in order to arrive at a pre-concieved conclusion.
NoFate » May 22, 2007 at 8:51 pm
“All real estate is local.”
What a contemptible lie. In the Case-Shiller model all 20 cities’ indices went waaay up over the last 5 years …some a bit sooner than others. If RE is local why did they all go UP together?
Now they are ALL going to go down and/or remain stagnant for years TOGETHER.
Ya know what though? Let them lie. And let all the morons of the world believe it. I finally got smart and bought some SRPIX about a month ago and I’m up about 9% already.
Note: SRPIX shorts IYR which matches the US REIT Index. I’m betting that the value of the US REITs will drop. Easy money.
synthetik » May 23, 2007 at 8:37 am
I had an email exchange with the corrupt Rhodes over a year ago about her ridiculous cheerleading. I stated the obvious, that her rag required the ad revenues from the REIC: her response “that’s preposterous! when the RE market goes south, companies will only advertise more to bring in new business!”
Johny » May 23, 2007 at 9:43 am
I am a subscriber to the Seattle Times and on some days the new home sales section is larger than the other sections. They package “articles” about fluffy stuff like parks and open spaces then fill it in with adds about areas close by for sale.
The real estate section in the Sunday is a blatent mixture of cheerleading and advertising. I will be canceling my subscription soon – i have enough junk mail.
explorer » May 23, 2007 at 10:44 am
I posted a question twice in two days about the numbers they used vs.the reality, and it was not included. Of course they are NOT interested in reality, because that would make no houses or even condos affordable under their methodology, especially in 2007.
The one question that skirted the issue about HOA dues was not really addressed, beyond saying “Good Question!”
What a transparent ra-ra for the RE industry.
CCG » May 23, 2007 at 11:42 am
“that’s preposterous! when the RE market goes south, companies will only advertise more to bring in new business!”
LOL. I’d love to see that if you don’t mind posting it.
Andrew » May 23, 2007 at 12:36 pm
“that’s preposterous! when the RE market goes south, companies will only advertise more to bring in new business!”
Actually, that’s not too far off. It has been said in various industries that when business is good you can advertise. When business is bad, you MUST advertise.
synthetik » May 23, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Andrew,
Sorry, but you couldn’t be more incorrect. Ask anyone that’s been in any type of media — ad revenues go WAY down in a recession, housing or otherwise.