# Holiday Shopping

HOLIDAY SHOPPING….The National Retail Federation passes along some holiday cheer today:

More than 172 million shoppers visited stores and websites over Black Friday weekend, up from 147 million shoppers last year.

Shoppers spent an average of \$372.57 this weekend, up 7.2 percent over last year’s \$347.55. Total spending reached an estimated \$41.0 billion.

We seem to have an arithmetic breakdown here. My calculator says this weekend’s numbers come to \$64 billion, compared to \$51 billion last year. That’s a 25% increase.

That seems implausible to me. On the other hand, it also seems implausible that 172 million times \$372.57 equals \$41 billion. So what’s going on?

POSTSCRIPT: For what it’s worth, the NRF’s methodology is to survey a bunch of people in an online poll and ask them how much they’ve spent this weekend. Every news outlet in the country reports the NRF numbers as gospel, but frankly, this approach strikes me as so dubious that I wonder if their numbers would mean anything even if they could get their arithmetic straight. It sure doesn’t jibe with the report of Wachovia analyst John Morris, who told the New York Times that “there was definitely more elbow room” in stores this year; or with ShopperTrak, which told them that sales increased only 3 percent on Friday; or with the numbers provided by Marshal Cohen of the NPD Group, who told them that Friday foot traffic was down 11 percent and the “shopping bag count” (whatever that is) was down 24 percent compared with last year. Very fishy, no? I blame the War on Christmas.

UPDATE: In comments, big truck notes that in the fine print NRF says that their 172 million number “includes same consumer shopping multiple days.” So maybe there were 110 million actual human beings spending \$372 each, which would net out to \$41 billion. However, applying the same logic to last year’s numbers still produces a 20% increase in total dollars spent this year (\$41 billion vs. \$34 billion), which seems wildly implausible. Why on earth does anyone take these figures seriously?

### WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about \$45,000 short of our \$300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of \$350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

### WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about \$45,000 short of our \$300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of \$350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.