outsmart the market? or, write a dumb headline?

curmudgeon much??
I got very confused reading the lead-front-page-above-the-fold NY Times article in today’s Real Estate section, Five Ways for Buyers to Outsmart the Market because — for some reason — I kept looking for ways that buyers could outsmart the local Manhattan real estate market. Instead of finding ways to outsmart the market, I ‘learned’:

• get all your paperwork in order ASAP and be prepared to update pay stubs, bank statements and other variable documents (not a bad idea, and perhaps useful advice for the uninitiated, as well as something that is more recently more important)
• (the second "lesson" is really hard to summarize; here’s my best shot) the Manhattan Real Estate Market is not as seasonal as it was once; or, buyers are more careful, so are slow in making up their minds; or, maybe the point is think of how long you will live there before you buy
• use the web to find out real listing history and real comps
• do some (a lot of?) due diligence, but (and?) be flexible about closing dates, and (but??) get a mortgage contingency clause
• be prepared for delays in closing because lenders ask for more and more (and more current) paperwork but (and?) be prepared for a deal to fall through because of a low appraisal or because of a coop board rejection, and (but?) transparency is good and (nonetheless??) The Market is better for buyers and sellers

do I take the Times too seriously?
Got that? Seriously, folks, read the damn article. Even without a headline that doesn’t fit, this is one of the most poorly edited NY Times articles that I have ever seen. And it is the featured article of the section!

wha‘ hoppend??
I don’t know if there are different editors involved in writing (reviewing) these headlines than in editing these articles, but this article simply does not lend itself to a 5-easy-rules-list. The headline worked, in the specific sense that it grabbed my attention and gave me a frame of reference for the article. Unfortunately (tragically), the text (a) does not flow from the headline, (b) is full of non-sequitors, and (c) uses quotes that have no relation to the main sub-point in each section.

I can’t figure out what this anecdote-with-quote has to do with any of the points in the second "way to outsmart the market", which was headed "The Search":

What the (heck) does Mr. Bartfield’s experience have to do with The Search?

The section "Pricing and Negotiating" used quotes from The Heddings and from Zillow that are relevant to, well, pricing and to negotiating. But then they dropped this anecdote-with-quote into the mix:

“We kept hearing, ‘It’s a buyer’s market’ — well, I’m not feeling that,” said Wendy Weissman, who with her husband has been looking for a one-bedroom prewar apartment in a doorman building since September. They thought for a time in the winter that they had found what they were looking for. But that deal, an estate sale, fell through because the seller lacked a document showing that he was the sole owner, and they began house-hunting again in March.

“When I first started to look,” Ms. Weissman said, “there seemed to be a lot more inventory. I don’t know if we’re asking for too much, but I just don’t want to settle.”

Is it quibbling to ask what Ms.

Weissman’s

sense that inventory is limited and her unwillingness to settle has to do with "Pricing and Negotiating"??

Again, read the headline, then read the article with the headline in mind. See if you agree that (a) the article does not deliver what the headline promises, and/or that (b) the string of statements + anecdotes + quotes is more a Palin-esque Word Salad than a coherent lesson on how to outsmart the market. Oh … and if you think there are lessons here on outsmarting the market, what are they? (Seriously. Please tell me.)

some compensation for NY Times readers
To read a wonderful piece in The Old Grey Lady, check out A. O. Scott’s review of MacGruber from a different section of The Paper Of Record. It didn’t make me laugh out loud, but it made me smile. A lot. Nicely played, sir. Nicely played.

© Sandy Mattingly 2010