Read how the first sentence starts-out: "Sales of Ugg boots are plummeting amid speculation that the boots are going out of style."
And here are the last couple of sentences: "But Ugg might be able to pull off the expansion because its brand power is powerful, Randal Konik, an analyst at Jefferies, wrote in November.
"Google search trends, Facebook likes and unique visitors to the Ugg website all show that the brand is still healthy and relevant,’’ he wrote."
Talk about some short-bunk-journalism! Yeah, retailers don't want to stock Decker's, and Deckers is at war with their distributors, and stabbing-them-in-the-back, twisting their arm, by building-out their own stores, so they can stock whatever they like! Sure, whatever you say! Sounds like some first-class, thorough research/journalism!
Funny how it's legal for the media to manipulate their stock-positions by saying whatever they please/pay to have published! Bunk!
Funny how this piece just so happens to get published at a time when shorts might want to reign the action in a bit, no!
companies need to start suing people who write this stuff, if only to make them think twice the next time. as long as companies sit back and watch people manipulate their stock price, it will continue to happen.
Agreed!!! The problem for the shorts is that their hit pieces have become ridiculously transparent. The opening sentence is a riot. Perhaps the shorts ought to hire someone that has taken a persuasive writing course.