Bloomberg’s move into consumer media

By Felix Salmon
October 6, 2010

Bloomberg CEO Dan Doctoroff wants to become a fully-fledged media mogul, not just in the hermetic space of financial terminals, but in consumer-facing media too. He tells Keith Kelly that the more inescapable Bloomberg’s media properties are, the better the terminals will do:

Said Doctoroff, “We want to gain a greater audience for Bloomberg News, which translates into greater influence, which translates into more market-moving news, which enables us to sell more terminals.”

Ryan Chittum is not convinced:

Hard to see how you’re going to use news to sell more $20,000 a year terminals if you’re dumping more of the same news on your Web sites for free.

I’m with Doctoroff on this one. The more ubiquitous Bloomberg’s news, the more terminals it will sell. The bigger and the better-known you are, the more quickly you’ll get your calls returned and the more exclusive access to newsmakers you will receive. In turn, that improves the quality of your news product, and the willingness of financial professionals to pay $20,000 a year for it.

Those professionals really don’t care if the news is on a Bloomberg website or not; as far as the market is concerned, the information is public as soon as it hits the terminal in any case. The competition for Bloomberg terminals is other terminals, not the web. And insofar as the web provides any competition at all, it’s the web as a whole which does so, not that tiny little corner of the web which is published by Bloomberg. The web is simply too big: no matter how much beefed-up Bloomberg content is “dumped” onto it, that’s never going to suddenly make it a much more attractive alternative to a purpose-built news and information terminal designed very specifically for financial professionals.

Instead, the web will give Bloomberg valuable visibility among the kind of people who will never use a terminal of any description, including large swathes of Washington as well as important people in the non-profit area, or the education sector, or any number of other important yet non-financial industries. And the more that they see and respect the brand, the more likely they are to become valuable sources for exactly the stories that traders with terminals want to see.

The point is that Bloomberg can profit from an asymmetry: if a Capitol Hill staffer reads B Gov a lot, she’ll be more likely to talk to the Bloomberg commodities reporter calling from New York or Sao Paulo. Which is why Doctoroff’s strategy makes sense, and Chittum’s skepticism is misplaced.

Comments
3 comments so far

The obvious point is that market-changing news has time value. Bloomberg putting their content on their website 15mins after it hits the wire is no more damaging for them than an exchange publishing delayed quotes for free.

Posted by cynicalmoose | Report as abusive

@cynicalmoose
Exactly. B-Pipe and other Bloomberg real-time products are incredibly expensive and the more impact a news item has, the more valuable it is to have it first. Wire services for other media is a natural complement in this business. Reuters understood this way before Bloomberg but their terminal product is lagging behind in terms of usability.

There are considerable barriers to entry in this market and the only other company that I could see making a dent in the market is Google, but I doubt they have the will or vision to compete. There would be sizable antitrust scrutiny if this were to happen.

Posted by lemarin | Report as abusive

I think its fair to say that the access to news is not the primary motivation for purchasing a Bloomberg terminal, but is instead the live data feeds from stock exchanges and banks, along with all the accompanying tools and calculators to manipulate the data. Consequently, I would agree with the general thrust of this post that an improved mass-media news service is not likely to drive additional terminal sales.

http://cautiousbull.wordpress.com/

Posted by spbaines | Report as abusive
Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/