There have been times where, I wouldn’t say I have been asked to fake the numbers but, I have felt like I needed to make my analysis support a desired outcome. As analysts we serve as independent and impartial investigators, whose goal is to deliver insight and analysis to our various customers so that they in-turn can make educated decisions about the future of their products.
If we fall into the trap of sculpting the numbers to support a desired outcome, regardless of the motivation, we are doing ourselves, our customers, and the end-users of our sites, a major disservice.
For some reason, when I think about this topic, I think about how crazy the financial term EBITDA drives me. I don’t like EBITDA, in fact, I’d go as far as saying I hate EBITDA. If you aren’t familiar with the term, EBITDA is a financial measure delivered to investors, that calculates earnings by deducting a lot of expenses (interest, taxes, depreciation, amortization, and other “non-core expenses). To me it is too open to abuse. Companies use EBITA to make their earnings look better than they really are. Perhaps I’m over simplifying things but I believe that “honesty is the best policy”.
The same holds true in analytics. I’m sure we could find loop holes and semi-ethical ways to fudge the numbers, but in the end, it is always best to be honest and simply report on what we find.
Adam Greco
Emer Kirrane
Eric Peterson
Evan LaPointe
Kevin Rogers
Michele Hinojosa
Pritesh Patel
Rudi Shumpert
2 Comments
You are correct on the “open to interpretation” part here on EBITDA. Before being in analytics, I used to be a CPA at a public accounting firm where I prepared financial statements and audited companies. Accounting revenue is very different than cash based revenue to say the least.
@Jason E., we were just messing around on the video. We were just poking fun at the metric knowing well that we aren’t experts at anything accounting related.