Wow! Talk About A Disappointment -- Bloomberg Businessweek, Special Issue, November 18, 2013 - January 2, 2014

Yes, whining.

For some reason I am a subscriber to Bloomberg Businessweek. It's a long story; the story starts before the two publications merged. I thought my subscription had expired. I used to get a very, very thin issue every week in the mailbox. Then, "they" told me that they were switching to "front door" delivery, which would bring the magazine to my doorstep a day or two sooner than by mail. I got the first issue, and then missed a week or two before I got a second issue. Then many weeks passed; I assumed my subscription had expired. Then today, on a Sunday, of all days, I got the Special Issue, The Year Ahead: 2014.

Wow, talk about a disappointment.

First: "the special issue" seems to be all advertising (and maybe that's why it is "special"). The advertising does not meet the level of advertising one sees in Vanity Fair, or The Wall Street Journal Magazine. It is really bad advertising. I particularly dislike heavy paper advertising which makes for difficult page turning. I always rip those pages out, and toss them.

Then, the presentation: whoever "designed" this special edition must really like fonts. Maybe that's why it's "special"; for the fonts. It looks like something a middle schooler would do. Or maybe something from Mad Magazine. I think there are no less than 35 different gaudy fonts on the three pages devoted to contents.

One should be able to do the contents in one page, leaving two more pages for content/substance (or heaven forbid, more advertising).

And some of the items in the "table" of contents were simply links to a small graphic, like the "Bigger Panama Canal." That was simply a graphic of the new canal, without explaining the significance of the canal, except to say "bigger ships would be able to get through it." Well, duh.  It did note that the project was behind schedule, and the completion, originally scheduled from sometime in 2014 will now be moved to sometime in 2015. 

Finally, the big story. The lead story. What the issue is all about. First, a two-page spread with lots of fonts. Five pictures of world leaders and a "2014: A User's Guide." A user's guide for what? I guess that's the title of the lead story, explaining what the special issue was all about and "how to use it." Even the iPad doesn't come with a user's guide.

The names of the leaders were all placed horizontally, except for "OBAMA" and "LI" which were placed vertically. That was an unfortunate choice for "LI" because I seriously thought that was the page number. Page 51, perhaps.

After paging through the very unappealing layout of the entire magazine, I then went back to read the lead story, to see if the content (as in "substance") might make up for the presentation. Here is the opening sentence of the lead article for this special issue (I cannot make this stuff up):

On Jan. 1, 2013, Latvia will adopt the euro and its lats currency will be no more. 

Seriously? That's the opening sentence for the lead article for the special edition which will be on news stands until January 2, 2014. Latvia (for newbies: a European country whose claim to fame is its composer Arvo Part. Oh, no, that was Estonia) will give up its lats and adopt the euro. That's the opening sentence? I scanned the three-page article. Remember, this issue is "The Year Ahead: 2014." If ObamaCare was mentioned, I missed it. The big US story in "the year ahead" will be, without a doubt, bet the farm on it, ObamaCare.

And then a lot more advertising.

On the front cover, "The Top Performers: 600 Companies, 55 Industries."

I tried finding that section, "The Top Performers: 600 Companies, 55 Industries." I couldn't on the first two tries. I checked the table of contents; couldn't find it. Looked again. The list of top performers is found in "a special advertising section" that is very, very difficult to find, and very, very difficult to read. Forbes does an incredibly better job. Speaking of which: the Forbes family is considering selling the magazine. Perhaps BBW should consider buying it (and leaving it unchanged, including the name; with my luck we will soon see BloombergBusinessForbesNewsweek).

There is a piece of fluff -- a short article on Warren Buffett making gazillions of dollars on CBR, something we've blogged about for a year or so, I suppose. Any reader who was unaware of that story is probably ....

I am now back to the table of contents; I want to point out what was said about Buffett. I can't find the story; the fonts are too distracting. Ahhh...there it is, p. 132. From the article:

Is there a lurking threat that could stop the tanker car boom in its hot-rolled-steel tracks? Kostad says the greatest concern for rail car makers is that oil companies will decide to build refineries closer to shale fields or run pipelines from them.

Is he serious? Building new refineries (plural) in the Obama environment; not in a million years. Okay, then pipelines? Let's see; "we" can't even get the Keystone XL Northern Leg approved. The writer doesn't even mention the two huge CBR derailments/spills/explosions; one that wiped out one Canadian town and another that burned for days in western Alabama (a state in the southeast United States). My hunch is that there was no way anyone was going to tie these disasters to Warren. But the biggest worry, as stated by an expert, building refineries near the shale fields? Wow. Seriously? The biggest worry is the Obama transportation regulators coming down hard on CBR tank cars. 

There was a bright spot. However, p. 206, a graphic of sorts in pink (girls) and blue (boys) ranking "investments" based on risk. The "pinker" the sector, the riskier; the "bluer" the sector, the "safer." I honestly could not find "oil E&P" among the forty or fifty sectors listed. The sectors did include apparel design, managed care, REITS, telecom carriers, food retailers, local media, biotech, utilities, and so forth. But no "oil E&P" unless I missed it. Unlikely. I've been looking at the page for five minutes. I do find something called .... I can't find it now ... oh, there it is ... "oil and gas services."

Everything on that "risk" page is in some hue of blue or pink, except for six or so sectors. Those six or so sectors are "grey" or "gray." One of the six is "oil and gas services." I assume "oil and gas exploration and production" is subsumed by "oil and gas services." I can't imagine lumping them together. I'm a splitter in this case. For me, "oil and gas E&P" is separate from "oil and gas services."

Hank Hill, who sells propane in Arlen, Texas ("King of The Hill," the Fox network) is in "oil and gas services." Harold Hamm, the CEO of CLR is in the "oil and gas E&P" business.

And furthermore, "oil and gas E&P" needs to be split: "oil E&P" and "natural gas E&P."

Every "oil and gas E&P" company that plans to be around in 2016 (with some notable exceptions like Chesapeake but now I'm repeating myself) are all moving to "oil E&P" as fast as they can.

By the way, there is only one sector that is bright pink: the riskiest investment sector for "The Year Ahead: 2014."

Guess which sector is the brightest pink (actually red, in this case)?

The answer: Renewable energy.

I cannot make this stuff up.