Actual Value Initiative: Bad Move, Philadelphia

On the 2000 block of Chestnut Street sits the Philadelphia Housing Authority building ? 2012-2014 Chestnut St. to be exact. An old, faded notice is affixed conspicuously to the fa?ade, which is also graced with rotting window frames and broken windows. The city?s Office of Property Assessment records show that the building is owned by the Philadelphia Housing Authority. The symbolism is stark.

Actual Value Initiative: Bad Move, Philadelphia

On the 2000 block of Chestnut Street sits the Philadelphia Housing Authority building ? 2012-2014 Chestnut St. to be exact. An old, faded notice is affixed conspicuously to the fa?ade, which is also graced with rotting window frames and broken windows. The city?s Office of Property Assessment records show that the building is owned by the Philadelphia Housing Authority. The symbolism is stark.

Actual Value Initiative: Bad Move, Philadelphia

On the 2000 block of Chestnut Street sits the Philadelphia Housing Authority building ? 2012-2014 Chestnut St. to be exact. An old, faded notice is affixed conspicuously to the fa?ade, which is also graced with rotting window frames and broken windows. The city?s Office of Property Assessment records show that the building is owned by the Philadelphia Housing Authority. The symbolism is stark.

Advertising: Courting Thrifty Consumers With Value and Quality Brands Stress Value and Quality to Reach Thrifty Consumers

Many on Madison Avenue are deciding to focus on value, as in value for money, celebrating thriftiness as they did during the dark days of 2008 and 2009 but also, in an effort to keep ads from growing stale, suggesting that product attributes like quality matter, too, in a “you get what you pay for” fashion.

For example, advertising to be introduced on Monday by Vonage, the Internet phone provider, replaces its usual message of lower prices, expressed by exhortations like “Ditch the big bill,” with a theme, “Crazy generous,” voiced by a brand character styled as the company’s new chief generosity officer. “What we need is a company that connects us with generosity,” the character says in a commercial by JWT, part of WPP.

The new theme is “bigger than just saving money,” said Barbara Goodstein, chief marketing officer at Vonage Holdings in Holmdel, N.J.

“We believe people should have the opportunity to find value in technology,” she added, listing elements that, in addition to low cost, include “flexibility, simplicity, quality, new products and innovation.”

The “Crazy generous” theme is meant to convey that Vonage remains “committed to providing consumers with low-cost communications services,” Ms. Goodstein said, as part of “a business philosophy” embodied by the brand character.

“He is a champion of the people,” she added, in a populist way, which makes him “the right spokesperson for our times.”

Procter & Gamble, the nation’s largest advertiser by spending, has been scrambling to fine-tune its lineup of mostly premium-price household staples in categories like beauty, detergents and paper goods. The goal is to add lower-price items to appeal to shoppers who have been switching brands to save money but still seek efficacy from what they buy, while not eroding sales for the company’s higher-price merchandise.

The recent abrupt departure of the Procter & Gamble chief executive, Robert A. McDonald, who was succeeded by his predecessor, A. G. Lafley, was attributed partly to concerns the effort was hitting too many bumpy patches.

One example of how Procter has sought to adapt to the times was the return in January of Vidal Sassoon hair products, discontinued in North America in 2003, as what the company called the “affordable” Vidal Sassoon Pro Series line — i.e., priced lower than the company’s Pantene brand name hair products, but higher than store brands.

This June, Procter & Gamble plans to introduce Iams So Good, a dog food that will cost about 15 percent less than the Iams line, which is among the higher-price dog foods like Eukanuba and Hill’s. Iams So Good, aimed at brands like Beneful and Pedigree, is being introduced with advertising by the creative agency for Iams, Saatchi & Saatchi in New York, part of the Publicis Groupe, that includes commercials, print and online ads, displays in stores and content in social media. The budget for the Iams So Good campaign, which echoes the Iams brand’s ad theme, “Keep love strong,” is estimated at more than $50 million.

Making Iams “more accessible” is “a big move for us,” said Kristine Decker, marketing director for North America at the Procter & Gamble pet care division in Cincinnati.

“We’re broadening our appeal,” she added, because “we realize a lot of our brands need to ‘tier down’ to appeal to more consumers.” She compared adding Iams So Good as part of the Iams line to the way the company added lower-price Bounty Basic and Charmin Basic products to the premium-price Bounty and Charmin lines of paper goods.

As Iams So Good arrives in stores, Procter intends to “support regular Iams, too,” Ms. Decker said, because “we’ve got to build the base as we expand.” According to Kantar Media, a division of WPP, Procter spent $69.9 million to advertise Iams last year in major media, compared with $67.4 million in 2011. That could help deter defections to Iams So Good by buyers of Iams.

The campaign for Iams So Good promotes the absence of ingredients like added sugar, dyes and artificial preservatives and proclaims that the new variety “has 100 percent wholesome ingredients and nothing else.” The product’s lower cost will be conveyed through the store displays and packaging rather than brought up in commercials or print ads.

“We don’t talk about the value or the price,” said Tris Gates-Bonarius, global creative director on the Iams and Eukanuba brands at Saatchi & Saatchi, so “the look and feel of the campaign” can be in “the Iams tone of voice, celebrating authentic, real relationships between pets and owners.” For instance, she added, the commercials for Iams So Good will feature pets, rather than trained animals, that appear with their owners, just as commercials for Iams do. One spot for Iams So Good depicts a dog named Harvey performing what is described as his “ ‘I’m happy you’re home’ dance.”

Ms. Decker echoed Ms. Gates-Bonarius. “Our first priority is to create awareness of what’s in your dog’s bowl,” Ms. Decker said of the campaign’s emphasis on the ingredients in Iams So Good. “We will drive more overt value awareness in stores.”

Wealth Matters: Technology’s Impact on the Value of Financial Advice

But is the technology good enough to replace guidance from financial advisers? Or is technology actually good for advisers because they can use it to do their jobs better?

Several new reports look at what technology will mean for an adviser, who, at his or her best, protects people from their worst investment ideas. And that brings up a corollary question: What will this trend, and enormous investment, in technology mean for the clients, the people whose money is at stake?

It seems almost heretical to propose that technology will not make an existing service better. But after reading the reports and talking to advisers who have embraced technology, I was not sure that this emphasis was going to be better for clients.

The report from Accenture looked at how younger clients sought relationships through technology and how advisers had to be available to provide it.

“When we talk to firms, they think social media is a new thing, and they’re trying to control the risk of it,” said Alex Pigliucci, global managing director of the wealth and asset management business at Accenture. “I see these tools as an advantage today. They’re not something to plan for in the next five to 10 years.”

“The Out-of-Sync Advisor,” a report by Deloitte, imagined technology bringing clients who were managing their own money back to advisers and then allowing those advisers to give people with a couple of hundred thousand dollars the type of high-quality advice reserved for people with hundreds of millions of dollars.

Ed Tracy, leader of the wealth management and private banking practice at Deloitte, said this would be possible only if all the clients’ financial information was already in the system so the advisers could spend their time together talking about the clients’ goals.

Fidelity’s annual broker and adviser sentiment index, released late last year, tried to put a dollar amount on all of this: technology-adept advisers who were focused on clients in their 30s and 40s managed, on average, $8 million more than colleagues focused on baby boomers. Their clients also had slightly larger accounts. (Not in the data was how technology contributed directly to this.)

But is there any practical value to investors in this push for more technology? In some areas, yes. In others, it remains to be seen.

Patrick O’Connor, senior vice president for wealth, retirement, portfolio solutions at Raymond James, said some of the best technological innovations reminded him of a recent visit to his new dentist.

Instead of pointing to a murky X-ray and telling him to floss, his dentist wheeled around a monitor that showed his teeth — and the problems with them — from various angles. A bit more brushing here and flossing there, and the image changed to show healthier teeth.

“She was giving me more ownership of my teeth,” Mr. O’Connor said. “I’ve been much more diligent about flossing and paying attention to those areas. Before, I would have ignored her. I’d been lectured to for 10 years.”

Technology, he said, can do much the same thing for investors, showing them how they are doing and the consequences of their spending and saving. The technology also becomes the bearer of bad news, not the adviser. “Instead of saying, ‘Sorry you’re in the red,’ I become the facilitator in getting you from the red to the green,” he said.

And technology can help clients reduce mundane and time-consuming tasks and increase the amount of time they can talk about the things that matter most to them.

“If someone had my data, understood my goals, had buckets in my portfolio and I knew if I was on track or off track and they only spent three hours a year with me, I’d feel a lot better than I would with someone I sat down with who said, ‘Tell me what’s going on,’ ” Mr. Tracy said.

DealBook: Buffett’s Annual Letter Plays Up Newspapers’ Value

Cliff Owen/Associated PressWarren Buffett, the billionaire investor and chief of Berkshire Hathaway.

Over the last half-century, Warren E. Buffett has built a reputation as a contrarian investor, betting against the crowd to amass a fortune estimated at $54 billion.

Mr. Buffett underscored that contrarian instinct in his annual letter to shareholders published on Friday. In a year when Mr. Buffett did not make any large acquisitions, he bought dozens of newspapers, a business others have shunned. His company, Berkshire Hathaway, has bought 28 dailies in the last 15 months.

“There is no substitute for a local newspaper that is doing its job,” he wrote.

Those purchases, which cost Mr. Buffett a total of $344 million, are relatively minor deals for Berkshire, and just a small part of the giant conglomerate. Mr. Buffett bemoaned his inability to do a major deal in 2012. “I pursued a couple of elephants, but came up empty-handed,” he said. “Our luck, however, changed earlier this year.”

Mr. Buffett was making a reference to one of his largest-ever deals. Last month, Berkshire, along with a Brazilian investment group, announced a $23.6 billion takeover,of the ketchup maker H. J. Heinz.

Written in accessible prose largely free of financial jargon, Berkshire’s annual letter holds appeal far beyond Wall Street. This year’s dispatch contained plenty of Mr. Buffett’s folksy observations about investing and business that his devotees relish.

“More than 50 years ago, Charlie told me that it was far better to buy a wonderful business at a fair price than to buy a fair business at a wonderful price,” Mr. Buffett wrote, referring to his longtime partner at Berkshire, Charlie Munger.

Mr. Buffett also struck a patriotic tone, directly appealing to his fellow chief executives “that opportunities abound in America.” He noted that the United States gross domestic product, on an inflation-adjusted basis, had more than quadrupled over the last six decades.

“Throughout that period, every tomorrow has been uncertain,” he wrote. “America’s destiny, however, has always been clear: ever-increasing abundance.”

The letter provides more than entertainment value and patriotic stirrings, delivering to Berkshire shareholders an update on the company’s vast collection of businesses. With a market capitalization of $250 billion, Berkshire ranks among the largest companies in the United States.

Its holdings vary, with big companies like the railroad operator Burlington Northern Santa Fe and the electric utility MidAmerican Energy, and smaller ones like the running-shoe outfit Brooks Sports and the chocolatier See’s Candies. All told, Berkshire employs about 288,000 people.

The letter, once again, did not answer a question that has vexed Berkshire shareholders and Buffett-ologists: Who will succeed Mr. Buffett, who is 82, as chief executive?

Last year, he acknowledged that he had chosen a successor, but he did not name the candidate.

He has said that upon his death, Berkshire will split his job in three, naming a chief executive, a nonexecutive chairman and several investment managers of its publicly traded holdings.

In 2010, he said that his son, Howard Buffett, would succeed him as nonexecutive chairman.

Berkshire’s share price recently traded at a record high, surpassing its prefinancial crisis peak reached in 2007 and rising about 22 percent over the last year.

The company reported net income last year of about $14.8 billion, up about 45 percent from 2011. Yet the company’s book value, or net worth — Mr. Buffett’s preferred performance measure — lagged the broader stock market, increasing 14.4 percent, compared with the market’s 16 percent return.

Mr. Buffett lamented that 2012 was only the ninth time in 48 years that Berkshire’s book value increase was less than the gain of the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index. But he pointed out that in eight of those nine years, the S.& P. had a gain of 15 percent or more, suggesting that Berkshire proved to be a most valuable investment during bad market periods.

“We do better when the wind is in our face,” he wrote.

For Berkshire’s largest collection of assets, its insurance operations, the wind has been at its back. We “shot the lights out last year” in insurance, Mr. Buffett said.

He lavished praise on the auto insurer Geico, giving a special shout-out to the company’s mascot, the Gecko lizard.

Investors also keep a keen eye on changes in Berkshire’s roughly $87 billion stock portfolio. Its holdings include large positions in iconic companies like International Business Machines, Coca-Cola, American Express and Wells Fargo. He said Berkshire’s investment in each of those was likely to increase in the future.

“Mae West had it right: ‘Too much of a good thing can be wonderful,’ ” Mr. Buffett wrote.

He also complimented two relatively new hires, Todd Combs and Ted Weschler, who now each manage about $5 billion in stock portfolios for Berkshire. Both men ran unheralded, modest-size money management firms before Mr. Buffett plucked them out of obscurity and moved them to Omaha to work for him.

He called the men “a perfect cultural fit” and indicated that the two would manage Berkshire’s entire stock portfolio once he steps aside. “We hit the jackpot with these two,” Mr. Buffett said, noting that last year, each outperformed the S.& P. by double-digit margins.

Then, sheepishly, employing supertiny type, he wrote: “They left me in the dust as well.”

A former paperboy and member of the Newspaper Association of America’s carrier hall of fame, Mr. Buffett devoted nearly three out of 24 pages of his annual report to newspapers.

While Mr. Buffett has been a longtime owner of The Buffalo News and a stakeholder in The Washington Post Company, he told shareholders four years ago that he wouldn’t buy a newspaper at any price.

But his latest note reflects how much his opinion has turned. His buying spree started in November 2011, when he struck a deal to buy The Omaha World-Herald Company, this hometown paper, for a reported $200 million. By May 2012, he bought out the chain of newspapers owned by Media General, except for The Tampa Tribune. In recent months, he continued to express his interest in buying more papers “at appropriate prices — and that means a very low multiple of current earnings.”

“Papers delivering comprehensive and reliable information to tightly bound communities and having a sensible Internet strategy will remain viable for a long time,” wrote Mr. Buffett.

Mr. Buffett said in a telephone interview last month that he would consider buying The Morning Call of Allentown, Pa., a paper that the Tribune Company is considering selling. But Mr. Buffett said he had not contacted Tribune executives.

“It’s solely a question of the specifics of it and the price,” he said about the Allentown paper. “But it’s similar to the kinds of communities that we bought papers in.”

Mr. Buffett has plenty of cash to make more newspaper acquisitions. To cover his portion of the Heinz purchase, Mr. Buffett will deploy about $12 billion of Berkshire’s $42 billion cash hoard. That leaves a lot of money for Mr. Buffett to continue his shopping spree for newspapers — and more major deals like Heinz.

“Charlie and I have again donned our safari outfits,” Mr. Buffett wrote, “and resumed our search for elephants.”

Actual Value Initiative: Bad Move, Philadelphia

On the 2000 block of Chestnut Street sits the Philadelphia Housing Authority building ? 2012-2014 Chestnut St. to be exact. An old, faded notice is affixed conspicuously to the fa?ade, which is also graced with rotting window frames and broken windows. The city?s Office of Property Assessment records show that the building is owned by the Philadelphia Housing Authority. The symbolism is stark.

New Service Helps Put a Dollar Value on Lawyers' Social Media Efforts

Do tweets and Facebook posts add up to billable hours?

Now that the Internet has displaced the Yellow Pages, many lawyers use social media to try to build their businesses, but few know whether the outreach is effective, legal consultants say.

"The reality is that the vast majority of lawyers just aren't keeping track," said Adrian Dayton, a consultant who helps law firms devise strategies for social media.

Avvo Ignite, a new service offered by the legal directory and forum Avvo, aims to change that by letting lawyers see how many inquiries originate from their presences on and offline -- and how many yield new clients.

Without monitoring what works and what doesn't, lawyers struggle to make the most of the new outlets available to them online, said Avvo executive Sachin Bhatia, who researched lawyers' social media habits before launching the service in November. Rather than sealing the deal, some lawyers spend too much time qualifying clients, he said. Many do not have a sound system for logging their prospects. And some do not get many leads from social media, he noted.

"We saw lawyers spending money to market in places when clients weren't even there," said Bhatia, who is vice president of products at Avvo Inc.

The Avvo Ignite Suite is supposed to help attorneys avoid that fate by documenting how each prospect found the firm and then facilitating communication and payment to bring clients on board. Another edition, Avvo Ignite Starter, creates basic websites and monthly activity reports and can be accessed on mobile devices. The Starter edition costs $199 per month with a $499 setup fee that can be waived with a yearlong contract.

Most who have signed up so far are lawyers at small to midsize firms and solo practitioners, Bhatia said. Social media can neutralize the reputational advantage enjoyed by Big Law, consultants note.

"It costs a fortune to launch an ad campaign in The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal, but not on social media," law firm consultant Peter Zeughauser said. "Social media levels the playing field for smaller firms."

And yet some lawyers -- particularly those who did not grow up with the Internet -- remain skeptical about social media, Zeughauser said. Lewis Rosenblum, an Orange County, Calif.-based criminal defense attorney, once questioned how much he stood to gain through the channels. When he launched his own office four years ago, he relied on the contacts that he made in 29 years as a prosecutor to generate business. Answering questions on Avvo showed him that there were clients to be found online. He now has accounts on Google Plus and Yahoo as well.

Subscribe to The Recorder

You must be signed in to comment on an article

Sign In or Subscribe
">

Economic Scene: Debating Real Value of Health Benefits in Poverty Calculations

In July, the Congressional Budget Office — the nonpartisan arbiter of the costs and consequences of government spending — decided that we had not been valuing these benefits enough. In a report on how income and taxes are distributed across the population, it decided, for the first time, to value health benefits provided by the government at every penny they cost.

The decision stoked a long-simmering debate about how much health care is really worth to poor families who may not have enough to eat. The reclassification of health benefits added $4,600 a year to households in the bottom fifth of income. It shrank the nation’s yawning income gap and muted the increase of inequality over the last three decades. And it changed the picture of what the government does for Americans.

The reasoning behind the budget office’s action seems to make lots of sense: the government spends almost $8,000 on the average Medicaid beneficiary and more than $12,000 for each person on Medicare. Why shouldn’t that count as income? Without it, the recipients could not afford an essential, lifesaving service. Moreover, the budget office considers Social Security benefits as income. And that’s the way it treats the health insurance provided by employers to their workers.

But not everyone thinks health care is worth that much. In particular, the Census Bureau does not include health care and other noncash benefits when computing the official poverty rate. Even its Supplemental Poverty Measure — which was created to capture noncash sources of income, as well as all the costs faced by the poor — sets the value of Medicare and Medicaid at zero.

That approach is not unreasonable, either. To paraphrase Timothy Smeeding, the director of the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin-Madison: you can’t eat health care. Medicaid benefits are enough to lift many people out of poverty statistically even if they don’t have enough money to afford housing, utilities and food.

And the addition of those benefits could alter how we view our progress. From 2000 to 2010, government spending for each Medicare recipient rose by two-thirds after inflation. But those increases probably didn’t make seniors feel wealthier, especially since their out-of-pocket expenses for medical care rose, too.

For years, the Congressional Budget Office followed the general approach of the Census Bureau: health benefits were worth only the amount that a family otherwise would have spent on doctors and other medical services — that is, money that could be used on something else. So Medicare, Medicaid or Children’s Health Insurance Program benefits to a family that didn’t have enough money to satisfy necessities like food, shelter and utilities were valued at zero, because without the government benefits the family wouldn’t spend on medical care at all.

The change in approach alters the calculation of who is living in poverty. Including these health benefits at face value raises by 25 percent the income of households in the poorest fifth of the population, to $23,300 in 2009 from $18,900 under the previous calculation. This is more than three times the average income of the poorest fifth of households before federal taxes and government benefits kick in, which in 2009 was $7,600. The gains from the new calculations are enough to vault a family of two parents and two children over the Census Bureau’s official poverty line of $21,756 and to almost breach the supplemental measure’s threshold of $23,854.

Because two-thirds of Medicare funds and 83 percent of Medicaid funds are spent on the poorest 40 percent of the population, the shift also narrows the nation’s income gap. Under the budget office’s old method, the richest fifth of American households made more than nine times the incomes of the poorest fifth, after taxes and government benefits. Under the new method, the rich take home less than 7.5 times what the poor do.

The new definition of income removes many seniors from the poorest group of Americans, as they are big consumers of Medicare. And it pushes more working families to the bottom of the income scale.

Accounting for health care this way also changes the view of what government actually accomplishes. Social scientists have noted with some dismay that taxes and government transfer payments have become less effective over the last 30 years at narrowing the income gap in American society. But including health benefits changes the outcome significantly because health care is becoming a much bigger part of government spending.

Under the budget office’s old methods, taxes and government spending in 2007 narrowed the income gap by 17 percent, as measured by the Gini index, which ranges from 0 when everybody has the same income to 1 when one plutocrat hoards it all. Including all government health spending as income, the government reduced inequality by 21 percent.

E-mail: eporter@nytimes.com; Twitter: @portereduardo