I'm always favorably impressed by James Surowiecki's column "The Financial Page" in The New Yorker. Far more so than by any of the various writers on matters cultural or political. He's concise, he's clear, and he nearly always has an interesting twist on a current economic topic. That's why I list Surowiecki's blog among my favorites in the right-hand column.
That said, I'd especially recommend you read this week's column, "Hanging Tough". Here, he adduces studies showing that companies which continue to spend on research and development, advertising, and acquisitions during recessions tend to fare very well, often outpacing those companies that cut back on those costs. The classic case he cites is Kellogg's' cementing its domination over Post in dry breakfast cereals by spending during the depression when Post did not. Of course, it doesn't always work; to read why, please click on the link above.
It makes heuristic sense to me, though; it's sort of like dollar cost averaging your investments. By continuing to spend more or less the same amount through good times and bad, your dollar buys more stocks/advertising/whatever, and especially comparatively, when others may be reducing spending.
Comments