14
votes
IKEA's profits have fallen nearly 10% as the world's largest furniture retailer stepped up its spending on renewable energy and its growing online operation
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Ikea profits fall 10% as retailer invests in online operation
- Authors
- Sarah Butler
- Published
- Nov 26 2019
- Word count
- 491 words
Note revenue increased (by slightly more than 5%); profits are down because they're spending more of their revenue on longer-term projects and investments.
Editorially, I think this headline is grossly negligent as written. Companies are already catastrophically bad at long-term planning; getting dinged with a negatively-phrased headline for it is only going to make the problem worse.
It seems factual? Yes, the difference in profits is a negative number, but If you agree with increased investment then it's not negatively phrased, it's just what you'd expect. I don't think we should need euphemisms for math?
It's factually true, but leading with "profits have fallen" and outright failing to mention the increased revenue implies "Ikea is doing poorly" when in fact the opposite is the case. No euphemisms are required; the subtext of the headline should match reality (for example, "Ikea invests greater share of increased revenue in renewables and online sales").
Profits have fallen carries an inherent negative tone with it in my opinion, and it's how most people are going to read it I think. It definitely seems a little attention-seeking.
This headline is a cacophemism for math, which is arguably worse at promoting understanding than a euphemism would be.
Hmm, the word "cacophemism" is new to me. Some interesting reading:
https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-cacophemism-words-1689819
Cheap and quality aren't diametrically opposed concepts. The materials are cheap, but it's generally well designed and has a coherent design language. I remember watching a Q&A session after a lecture on the history of Bauhaus, and a question came up about Ikea. I think the questioner wanted to know how the founders of the movement would feel about their ideas being "bastardized", but the lecturer responded "They would LOVE Ikea!"
Granted, some of it "cheap" in a bad sense (plastic parts that shouldn't be plastic, hellish assemblies, etc), but it's nothing that can't be checked against the online reviews of the items. On the other hand, there's some truly well designed stuff too like rail systems for kitchen gadgets and the like - stuff which doesn't need to have functionality balanced against quality of materials.
Yes, IKEA is probably a step up from Walmart or Target furniture and also others that came before it in the "cheap but new" furniture category. I'm remembering the first desk I bought at Sears. I think they deserve a lot of respect for being good at what they do.
Yes, used seems like the better deal assuming time to do some looking? Better for the environment too.