Sweet redux on Krispy Kreme is not enough…
Nearly 5 1/2 years ago, when footnoted.org had only been around for a month, I wrote this post about Krispy Kreme (KKD), which at the time, was a Wall Street and media darling. Anyone remember that Andy Serwer love letter in Fortune?
At the time the stock was trading in the low 40s, but there was something in their 10-Q that caught my attention: some odd accounting for a bunch of related-party transactions. I thought about this yesterday when I read this release that Krispy Kreme and three former executives, including former CEO Scott Livengood, had settled with the SEC. The WSJ has the details here as does Bloomberg.
It may have taken 5 1/2 years, but it’s still nice to hear that someone else thinks you’re right. Of course, being right only goes so far. For the past week, I’ve asked readers to donate money to the site because advertising revenues have fallen sharply over the past few months. So far, only a few people have contributed. In the past, speaking fees and repackaging of footnoted content have also helped to cover the site’s expenses. But those too have fallen sharply. So unless something changes dramatically, I may have few choices but to put all of footnoted content behind a subscription wall. And then people who are willing to pay for the time and effort it takes to pore through SEC filings and find things like the Krispy Kreme find or this post on General Electric (GE) back when it was trading in the $20s, will have access to the content. And those that are unwilling to pay will not.
There’s a lot of smart people who read this site and I’m certainly open to suggestions on solving this in a way that works for everyone. So if you have an idea, please send it to me or post it below.
UPDATE 3/9: As of this morning, readers have contributed $425 to the site. While every donation is very much appreciated, this still only covers a little less than 1/3 of the costs of the site for the month of February. And that’s before I make a single dime. Given the sophistication of footnoted readers, I’m sure most of you understand that I can’t continue to lose money each month. I should also clarify one point: if footnoted content goes behind a wall, it will be less than the cost of FootnotedPro, which was designed for a different audience. I still welcome your suggestions and comments — I’ve received many great suggestions over the past few days — for coming up with a solution that works for everyone.
Advertisement
|
Posted in Tags: SEC, soapbox |
 17 Comments » |
March 5th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Have you looked into affiliate programs?
If you cite a book get your linking code from Amazon Associates program.
If you cite Barron’s or Forbes, there are magazine affiliate programs.
Oh, and on my old work laptop (which I still use 5 days a week) the sidebar
is at the bottome because it won’t fit on a 1024×768 screen.
March 5th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
I missed that accounting mark and lost some cash. (Oddly enough, my paltry settlement from the securities class action showed up a few weeks ago. )
It seems strange that it took the SEC this long to bring the enforcement action.
March 5th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
On ad revenue dropping, I notice you have alot of subscribers to the RSS feed. I typically read your posts via a reader and rarely see any ads. I know you can set up a feed that would also include ads, so that all the readers also see the ads.
March 5th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
@rjp: Thanks for the suggestion. I have looked into affiliate programs in the past, but not recently. Maybe it’s time to revisit.
@ Jas: Feedburner, before it was acquired by Google, used to do a good job at ads in RSS feeds, but they stopped that. I know that Google has a similar program, but the quality of the ads — at least judging from what I’ve seen on other sites — isn’t very good.
March 5th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Try pheedo?
Your site doesn’t appear to have any adsense ads, but between your URL construction and the content you’re a perfect site for adsense.
You’d also gain from any ad revenue off your use of Google for sitesearch.
While I’m trolling through your HTML, suggest updating your Google Analytics code to the most recent version (the urchin.js is deprecated. The “new” version also integrates a bit with adsense though I get so little ad revenue I can’t tell what that integration is).
March 5th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
I’m not a sales-y kind of person. And I’m sorry that this may come across as being a bit snippy. But I think that revisiting a 5-1/2 year old article isn’t going to garner many subscriptions, if that was the intent. 2-cents…
March 5th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
@epc: Thanks for the suggestions. My past experience with adsense is that the ad relevancy wasn’t very good. When I had it on, I still remember an ad that ran called turtlesonline. And other ads promised penny stock tips or payday loans — not things that would be relevant to footnoted’s audience. Maybe adsense has improved, though, so I will check it out again.
@New Horizon: Thanks for the feedback. The purpose of pointing to that 5 1/2 year old post was to show that early on — as it does now — footnoted often bucks the conventional wisdom so that when all these other sites are saying bet the farm, we’re saying not so fast. For people who are interested in either shorting stocks or risk avoidance, this sort of information can not just be useful — it can make money or help prevent a significant loss.
The bottom line is that reading SEC files isn’t just time consuming, you also have to know what you’re looking for. And it’s gotten to a point where it’s hard to justify giving that away for free, given the sharp downturn in advertising as well as other revenues used to support the site.
March 5th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
I can’t pay but I wish I could.
How about grants from sympathetic deep pockets.
The Rex Foundation? Something along those lines or left leaning hedgies?
Seems a shame the average person has to lose your content.
March 6th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Michelle,
Great site…don’t recall how I came across it, but I really have enjoyed it. I keep up with your posts via RSS feed.
Your ability to take complex issues (in this case sometimes intentionally complex and convoluted disclosures) and explain them in a way that is easy to understand is a talent few posses…though its easily overlooked. Your experience and ability to pore over filings to pull out the few good nuggets of info has really been valuable to me and I’m sure many others. I chipped in a few $’s for the cause, I hope many others will too.
Keep up the great work!
March 6th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
I made a small donation. Keep up the good work.
March 8th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
What do you consider a reasonable donation? I am willing to help but need an estimate.
March 8th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
I was willing to pay a subscription fee until the site lost its neutrality and became political soapbox during the 2008 presidential election. This is ironically, the first time I have visited this site since Oct-2008. When I know that my $ is going toward a specific service, I’m very supportive. When that same $ becomes mixed in with emotionally charged politics, I can’t justify (to myself) the expense.
March 8th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
@ Steve: I didn’t want to suggest an amount because everyone’s personal economic situation is different. But I can tell you that the average donation has been around $20, with the lowest $10 and the highest $100. While there have been some additional donations over the past few days and I’m very appreciative for every single one, they still didn’t begin to cover the cost of running the site in February, when ad revenues reached a new low. My hope remains that this can be voluntary and supported by footnoted readers who are able to contribute.
@Rob: Apologies if something that I wrote was overtly political during the election. While there were at best 2 posts that touched on politics, and specifically my support for Barack Obama, I can understand if you prefer your SEC filings opinion-free. Luckily, there’s a place for that: it’s called Edgar.
March 9th, 2009 at 6:40 am
Alan says, I wish I could pay but I can’t. Does he go into the grocery store, walk out the door with a gallon of milk, and say, I wish I could pay but I can’t?
March 11th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
@Michelle:
Comments are what I would look forward to in footnotedo. They are usually perfectly balanced with precision and interest. However, these comments did not “touch” on politics, but rather blasted the site with a political message. If Jim Cramer took 10 minutes to talk about his political views in a way that was not even related to the impact of shareholders (eg if his espoused religious views re abortion), I think he would also lose a lot of viewers.
My statement is probably all for naut, since my post will likely be removed anyway…
March 11th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Guess I proved you wrong @Rob by allowing your post through. I don’t have a problem with criticism. But it seems a bit odd that nearly six months later, you’re still dwelling on 1 post that was written on election day. Time to get over it. Or, feel free to start your own site that provides commentary on SEC filings that is more in line with your political views. I’ll even happily link to you
March 22nd, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Michelle, You are doing something that I really appreciate and am happy to support. Unlike some readers, I don’t care what your political views are, but do care about following how some try to hide their actions. What you’re doing is keeping these people under a very bright spotlight. Keep on spreading some sunshine in the dark corners of the financial world. I hope that you can continue to make this site available for everyone.