BusinessWeek Logo

The BusinessWeek buyout: Can Bloomberg extend beyond its core?

Posted by: Stephen Baker on October 15, 2009

Several hundred BusinessWeek employees filed into an auditorium at the McGraw Hill headquarters yesterday morning to learn about their future. On the stage were top editors and execs from Bloomberg LP, which had just scooped up our 80 weekly (and its Web site) at an undisclosed (but no doubt fire-sale) price.

Here’s what we heard: Bloomberg, which sells its “box” for $20,000 a year, is swimming in money, unfettered by the grim advertising economy, immensely ambitious, and dedicated to becoming the leading power in financial and business news. Getting bought by such an outfit bodes well for many at BusinessWeek. While restructuring and layoffs are inevitable at a magazine losing $1 million a week, Bloomberg ranks as the closest thing in journalism these days to a safe home.

Still, I’m trying to think ahead 10 years and wondering about the future of Bloomberg’s model. They have a proprietary technology platform in a world moving toward open standards. Their box has an interface that requires training courses—this in a global market where simple, intuitive systems rise to the top. These limitations haven’t mattered to date, because Bloomberg holds a trump card: speedy and reliable data. Traders have plenty of incentive to pay for the boxes and figure out how to use them, because real-time data is a must. If their competitors get the news first, they lose. It’s this dynamic which fuels the 300,000 (and counting) subscriptions for Bloomberg boxes.

How much can this market grow? To listen to Bloomberg execs, they make money from the boxes and invest that money in more news-gathering power, which makes the boxes even more attractive. It’s a virtuous cycle which presumably leads to continuous growth. With BusinessWeek, Bloomberg hopes to extend its brand into the wider business audience, including c-suite executives, and open up further markets for their boxes.

I don’t see it. In my experience, every continuous growth projection encounters some force that disrupts it.

Seems to me that for Bloomberg to reach wider business dominance, it must leverage the power of its box outside the box—finding a way to sell premium data services for a fraction of $20,000 a year on the Web. This will require far more than the virtuous cycle. The company, which a generation ago innovated with the box, will have to innovate again, developing a new business model. Of course, it doesn’t hurt to have $6 billion in box revenue and and an immense news organization backing it up. But still, it will require establishing new and cheaper services that provide a dose of magic from the box, but without cannibalizing it.

The BusinessWeek acquisition may provide some of the missing pieces. Yet despite the ambitions expressed at yesterday’s meeting, I’d bet that the magazine will end up serving largely as a promotional tool for the company. The real business will be online. That’s where Bloomberg 2.0 will take shape.

(I postponed a flight to Colorado yesterday so that I could attend the meeting, and then I struggled to get a standby flight out here. By the way, I didn’t hear one word at yesterday’s meeting about how Bloomberg plans to use social media. If and when I get to meet the buyers, I’ll be asking them that.)
(cross-posted on TheNumerati.net)

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blogs.businessweek.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/

Reader Comments

Jeff Jarvis

October 17, 2009 04:53 PM

Bloomberg employees are pretty much forbidden from using Twitter and social media (as I learned when I spoke there).

Jeff Jarvis

October 17, 2009 04:56 PM

Here's a link to Gawker's report on Bloomberg's social policy:
http://gawker.com/5266146/bloomberg-forbids-mentioning-competitors-or-linking-to-them

schadenfreudisch

October 19, 2009 05:18 PM

just for fun, i'm imagining a two-tiered social networking policy. i'm not saying bw reporters are the ones who get more freedom than their bloomberg comrades, but they do have more practice at it. and some reporters deserve more free speech than others if you know what i mean.

TVB

October 20, 2009 12:23 AM

And no wonder Bloomberg employees are "pretty much forbidden from using ... social media"! Because any employee, such as yourselves, Mr. Baker and Mr. Jarvis, can go rattle off any rumor or shadow of a rumor that they come across, damaging the image of the corporation. No real sources of significance have been cited in this post, for all *we* (the blog-reading public) know, this is just the work of disgruntled employees, unhappy with a buyout! But I suppose if any other member of the blog-reading public finds Gawker to be a credible business news source (!), perhaps they won't be as disappointed as I in this post.

steve baker

October 23, 2009 02:23 PM

TVB, if you're interested in accountability, why don't you share your name?
If I "rattle off" any rumor and damage the reputation of a company, don't you think that hurts my own reputation, both within my company and in the rest of the world? My name is on what I write, so there are consequences for me when I do make mistakes.

Thank you for your interest. This blog is no longer active.

 

About

In Blogspotting Senior Writer Stephen Baker and Associate Editor Heather Green take a look at how cutting-edge technologies are changing business and society. Whether its blogs or wikis, data crunching or data targeting, technology’s advances are reshaping the world that we live in.

BW Mall - Sponsored Links

Buy a link now!