The Lemon Fool

It’s a sign of lazy reporting when an article begins “A new report has shown…” or “A new study has revealed …” as it’s inevitably just a rehash of a press release.

A classic example is in yesterday’s Telegraph. The ‘article’ reads as follows:

With the post-pandemic return of weddings this summer comes the exorbitant outlay for attending them. Guests will spend £883 on average to attend each wedding this year, up from £391 in 2019, according to American Express. The credit card firm said costs for hair and beauty had jumped 41pc per wedding, spending on outfits had risen by more than a fifth to £159, up from £130 in 2019, while accommodation costs were up 31pc.

Not only is it irritating that a supposedly responsible newspaper just churns out this rubbish without comment, but the headline figure is patently absurd. None of the examples given are anywhere near the 125% increase alleged, and even if the prices had increased by that amount anyone who spends £883 simply to attend a wedding is clinically insane!

Rant over!

Can I start by suggesting this legal nugget as background music https://youtu.be/0aVuM9aDMNk
- (and I greatly recommend that channel - great stuff well explained)

So anyways... I saw this on the record:

Clitheroekid wrote:Guests will spend £883 on average to attend each wedding this year, up from £391

- and, your honour, I must confess I thought "TW*TS!"
- if they're going to do that they deserve everything that comes their way..

But then ..

Clitheroekid wrote:None of the examples given are anywhere near the 125% increase alleged

Now I'm a bit of a "back of a fag pack" kind of a guy (stop sniggering you Americans ) and if I could find a pack lying around I'd probably write down
391 times 2.25 is 879
next to some dodgy bird's number!

So can I ask "how precise should one expect a tawdry rag to be when it comes to complicated stuff like numbers and what have you"?

And one more thing..
....they ARE probably TW*TS right?

-sd

Depends where it is, prices of petrol have gone up in my area

Clitheroekid wrote:It’s a sign of lazy reporting when an article begins “A new report has shown…” or “A new study has revealed …” as it’s inevitably just a rehash of a press release.

A classic example is in yesterday’s Telegraph. The ‘article’ reads as follows:

With the post-pandemic return of weddings this summer comes the exorbitant outlay for attending them. Guests will spend £883 on average to attend each wedding this year, up from £391 in 2019, according to American Express. The credit card firm said costs for hair and beauty had jumped 41pc per wedding, spending on outfits had risen by more than a fifth to £159, up from £130 in 2019, while accommodation costs were up 31pc.

Not only is it irritating that a supposedly responsible newspaper just churns out this rubbish without comment, but the headline figure is patently absurd. None of the examples given are anywhere near the 125% increase alleged, and even if the prices had increased by that amount anyone who spends £883 simply to attend a wedding is clinically insane!

Rant over!

Seems totally reasonably to me . I'm not going to anymore weddings - my badness

AiY(D)

I just don't get the way these sort of figures are worked out
HTF do they know what people spend and what is taken into account

A new suit/dress? (most people have something decent to wear already)
Travel (driving, train plane, or get a lift from someone)
Accommodation - (anyone's guess, Ibis, the Ritz, a pub or a mates house)
Present (ok that depends on one's generosity and wallet)

See what I mean you can come up with any number you want

https://about.americanexpress.com/newsr ... 0to%202021.

This is the Amex report. They asked 2,000 people. How can one possibly remember what one has spent. Perhaps there were a few grossly extravagant individuals in their survey. Presumably the ladies may spend more than the men?

Next month I have a wedding to go to will cost £350
£100 in fuel costs (and that is MUCH more than last years cost)
£250 present (for my niece)

NOWHERE near this fabricated "average"

I never miss an episode of 'More or Less' on Radio 4. The perfect antidote to stupid stats.

Clitheroekid wrote:None of the examples given are anywhere near the 125% increase alleged, and even if the prices had increased by that amount anyone who spends £883 simply to attend a wedding is clinically insane!

Rant over!

Totally agree. There is NO WAY I'd ever spend more than £882 attending a welding.

scrumpyjack wrote:https://about.americanexpress.com/newsroom/press-releases/news-details/2022/UK-wedding-guests-to-spend-15.6-billion-in-2022-as-Brits-enjoy-restriction-free-ceremonies-once-again/default.aspx#:~:text=New%20research1%20from%20American,beauty%20%26%20grooming%20compared%20to%202021.

This is the Amex report. They asked 2,000 people. How can one possibly remember what one has spent. Perhaps there were a few grossly extravagant individuals in their survey. Presumably the ladies may spend more than the men?

Thanks for the link.

I was surprised to see that the comparison is with 2021, not 2019, and I can't see any mention of the figure of £391 at all, so perhaps the DT `journalist' simply invented it, probably thinking that nobody would bother to check.

The DT used to be a reasonable paper about 20 years ago, but over the past few years it's deteriorated in quality almost as quickly as its cover price has increased.

As above, piece of string. If you need a new suit (or dress, or whatever) for a wedding, the chances are that you couldn't fit into the old one anyway, and so the wedding was just the trigger. But, human psychology being what it is, it's easier to pin the guilt-inducing expenditure on the wedding than on normal wear and tear.

And then there's the rocketing price of hotel accommodation at the moment. (You can thank staycations for that.) And the fact that wedding guests are increasingly adding in the cost of the hen/stag do in Barbados or Phuket when they answer these questions. Not to mention the fact that Amex cardholders in the UK are still a relatively affluent and unrepresentative sector of the population.

All it takes then is for some bone-idle hack to compare Amex's figure with an old figure from some government statistical agency, or maybe Citizens' Advice or something, and you've got a guaranteed headline-grabber. I spent some years on Fleet Street, and I can confirm that there's career pressure to come up with this sort of headline-grabbing rubbish. More so in some papers than in others.

BJ