Question

In: Accounting

Copyright 2016 Deloitte Development LLC All Rights Reserved. Case 17-7 Mesmerizing Marketers Mesmerizing Marketers (MM) is...

Copyright 2016 Deloitte Development LLC All Rights Reserved.

Case 17-7 Mesmerizing Marketers

Mesmerizing Marketers (MM) is a marketing company that offers a variety of marketing offerings to its customers. Specifically:

• MM will create a TV commercial for $1M, build an app for $500K, and build a Facebook page for $250K. These amounts represent MM’s charges for these items when MM sells them separately to customers. The TV commercial, the app, and the Facebook page are not interrelated; that is, each functions independently of the other offerings.

• If a customer purchases all aforementioned items together, the total cost is $1.5M. Payment terms are 50 percent consideration due at contract signing, with the remaining 50 percent due over the rest of the development period (25 percent at mid-point, 25 percent at completion).

• If the app is downloaded 500K times or more in the first month, there is a one-time bonus of $250K payable to MM.

Stone, a customer, approaches MM with the hopes of reinventing its image to a younger customer base. Stone has a verbal agreement with MM that is based on MM’s unsigned quote to Stone on November 30, 20X5, for one TV commercial, one app, and a Facebook page. The agreement creates enforceable rights and obligations pursuant to MM’s customary business practices. None of these items can be redirected by MM to another customer. MM performed a credit check on Stone and has determined that Stone has the intention and ability to pay MM for fulfilling its portion of the contract. Stone is required to pay MM for performance completed to date if Stone cancels the contract with MM for reasons other than MM’s failure to perform under the contract as promised.

Stone makes a payment on November 30, 20X5, in the amount of $750K pursuant to the agreement. From the date of the quote, it takes MM six months to develop and produce the TV commercial, two weeks to complete the Facebook page, and three months to complete a fully functioning app. MM does not think that the app will be downloaded 500K times in the first month because Stone’s customer base does not quickly accept newly developed technology. On the basis of its experience with similar technology, MM has determined that it takes over three months for Stone’s users to begin to download its apps.

Required

MM’s CFO is trying to understand the new revenue recognition model and has asked you to explain how MM would account for the above scenario under the new standard.

1. How should MM account for the above offering with Stone under the new revenue recognition model?

2. How would your conclusions change if: a. The app sold to Stone is actually downloaded more than 500K times in the first month?

?

Case 17-7c: Mesmerizing Marketers Page 2

Copyright 2016 Deloitte Development LLC All Rights Reserved.

b. MM believed at the outset that there is about a 75 percent chance that the app will be downloaded more than 500K times and it is probable that there will not be a significant reversal of revenue?

Solutions

Expert Solution

1. Revenue is to be recognised only when there is an enforceable agreement, service/product has been clearly identified and delivered so as to establish the earning right of the seller.

In tha above example $1.5M has to be divided in all the three products in the ratio of 1M:500K:250K which will be $857,143 for TV commercial (6 months to develop) $428,571 for app (3 months) and $214,286 for fb page (2 weeks).

on November 30, 20X5 no revenue will be recognised as services/product have not been renedered. However an entry for unearned revenue would be posted to the liability side with a debit to bank account for 750K.

Respectively 25% of advance money received will also be treated similarly.

On the completion of each service the respective amount should be taken to revenue by crediting this account and debiting the unearned revenue account.

2. As soon as the app is downloaded for 500k times in the first month, MM should increase its revenue and debit Accounts receivable account.

b. On the probable belief that the app will be downloaded for more than 500K times, revenue should not be recognised. In revenue recognistion a company has to be conservative unlike expenses.


Related Solutions

Copyright 2009 Deloitte Development LLC All Rights Reserved. Case 11-7 Food for Thought Allfoods Corp. (Allfoods)...
Copyright 2009 Deloitte Development LLC All Rights Reserved. Case 11-7 Food for Thought Allfoods Corp. (Allfoods) is a calendar year-end company. On February 1, 2009, Allfoods announced that it was acquiring 80 percent of the outstanding common stock of Baked Beans Corp. (Baked Beans) in a business combination. On the acquisition date, Allfoods paid $40 million in cash and issued two million shares of Allfoods common stock to the selling shareholders of Baked Beans. All of the outstanding stock options...
Case 17-7 Mesmerizing Marketers Mesmerizing Marketers (MM) is a marketing company that offers a variety of...
Case 17-7 Mesmerizing Marketers Mesmerizing Marketers (MM) is a marketing company that offers a variety of marketing offerings to its customers. Specifically: • MM will create a TV commercial for $1M, build an app for $500K, and build a Facebook page for $250K. These amounts represent MM’s charges for these items when MM sells them separately to customers. The TV commercial, the app, and the Facebook page are not interrelated; that is, each functions independently of the other offerings. •...
Copyright 2012 Deloitte Development LLC All Rights Re served. Case 13- 08 Accounting for a Loss...
Copyright 2012 Deloitte Development LLC All Rights Re served. Case 13- 08 Accounting for a Loss Contingency for a Verdict Overturned on Appeal M International (“M”) and W Inc. ( “W,” a competitor of M) have been engaged in long- standing litigation over a specific patent infringement matter . Below is a summary timeline of specific events that have taken place related to this matter : • In May 2007, W filed a claim against M for patent infringement ....
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT