News quiz: Which company can claim the largest journalistic workforce in the world?
As you ponder the globe’s premier news organizations — from the Times, the Journal, the Post, and the Guardian, to the BBCs, NBCs, ABCs, and NPRs, to the Bloombergs, AFPs, and APs — you’re getting closer to the right answer.
It’s Reuters, with a stable of more than 2,900 journalists at last count, and still growing. That’s right: No single company now tops 3,000 journalists, though AP, at 2,300 — and Japan’s Yomiuri — are closer to Reuters’ total. Most of the other companies are closer to a third to a half of Reuters’ size.
Reuters — a household name in the U.K., where it was born 160 years ago — is now an emerging force in the U.S. That push is fueled by the 2008 Thomson Reuters merger, by the great disruption of the U.S. news business, by the launch of Reuters America (“Reuters America Claims New Territory: First Stop, Chicago and Tribune”), and by the rapidly moving effort to make over Reuters News itself.
That U.S. initiative, where it fancies itself an insurgent, is ironic, given how big a company of which it’s part. Thomson Reuters took in $13.1 billion last year, only a one percent gain, but showing $1.4 billion in profit. More than 95 percent of that revenue comes from financial, business, and legal clients, who pay top dollar for industry news and analysis that feeds their decision-making. So, with Reuters Media less than 3 percent of TR’s revenue (at $324 million in 2010), the news operation’s own profit pressure is lessened. Unlike The New York Times, for instance, for which the new digital circulation play is practically a bet-the-company move, Reuters Media has the running room to get it right, to innovate with products and to invest in new markets.
Steve Adler, a veteran of BusinessWeek, the Wall Street Journal and American Lawyer, as well as Reuters itself (which he joined in January 2010 as senior vice president and editorial director of the company’s Professional Division), is the first U.S.-based editor-in-chief of Reuters News, taking on that job in February. In rat-a-tat-tat fashion, he’s made a slew of high-level appointments. Those choices tell us a lot about the new direction of Reuters and how it is likely to become much more of a well known brand, both within the trade and in the greater business/consumer reader world.
I talked with Adler this week to get a greater insight into the changing world of Reuters Media. In his mandate and in his vision, we can see powerful newsonomics in motion, that complex play of money and journalism that is reshaping what is written and what’s read.
Adler’s big push is to add stories of context and deeper understanding to its century-old craft of cranking out “fast, accurate, and fair” pieces. “The business itself drives us to do both,” he told me. “It’s also a move against commodification. You want to write the smartest story on the earnings report.”
He’s clear, though, that the move is huge one for a company whose very DNA is in those fast pieces. Reuters’ 2009 acquisition of Breakingviews, commentary on business news, was an early indication of doing both. The shift Adler and team are leading, though, is remodeling the news organization, top to bottom, not just adding on a new window here or there.
While Reuters.com still features vestigial “update 1″ and “update 2″ stories, in recent months it’s begun to showcase in-depth pieces, ranging from “The Hunt for Mladic” to major academic disclosure questions, indications of the intended balance.
His news exec appointments reinforce the notion that Reuters News is intending to step out from its get-it-first, get-it-fast, say-it-in-less-than-900-words legacy. Among those appointments:
- Paul Ingrassia, a former president of Dow Jones Newswires, is the new deputy editor-in-chief, responsible for news content creation;
- Jim Impoco, ex of the New York Times, Conde Nast, Fortune and more, is now executive editor;
- Reginald Chua, former editor-in-chief of The South China Morning Post, is now the data editor, emphasizing the increased emphasis in connecting Thomson Reuters’ deep data assets to its journalism;
- Jim Gaines, former Time Inc. magazine editor, will focus on ethics, standards and innovation;
- Harold Evans, legendary Sunday Times editor, joins as editor-at-large, making a big splash this week in his Henry Kissinger/Jon Huntsman, China-oriented event, which Huntsman chose to announce his presidential run;
- Stuart Karle, former general counsel to The Wall Street Journal, has become the chief operating officer, responsible for all support functions for news;
- Mike Williams, former Page One editor of the Wall Street Journal, is now global enterprise editor;
- Jim Ledbetter, ex of Slate’s the Big Money, CNN Money, and the Industry Standard, has just become op-ed editor, moving from the Reuters.com editorship that he took on last year.
And in the digital operation:
- Chrystia Freeland, ex of the FT, is now editor, Thomson Reuters Digital, focused on showcasing content across the company’s digital news platforms globally;
- Ken Li, a former FT staffer who returned to Reuters last year, moves up to online global editor of Reuters.com, from editor of tech and media. Ryan McCarthy, ex of HuffPo as business editor, becomes Li’s deputy.
That’s just the top of it, as reorganization starts to impact many reporting teams. (Good coverage of the Reuters news changes at TalkingBizNews.com.) Even in an age of much high-talent hiring and raiding, it’s a most impressive list, and represents the diverse lineage that Adler intends to draw on to create the new Reuters.
One big key to Reuters’ news future: the United States. It’s admittedly weak here, in number of clients, in consumer share of mind, and in revenue. In that weakness, we see Reuters’ paradox — why isn’t the world’s largest news organization the clear news leader? — displayed.
Reuters has an American problem. Reuters has an American opportunity.
“We don’t want to be seen as a foreign posting of a global operation,” says Adler. “We want to be more global by being stronger in the U.S.” While global competitors talk about Brazil, Asia, or the Middle East as top growth markets, Reuters says its number one target market news market is the U.S.
That means that the its bullseye is squarely on AP, whose own 2010 revenues were $630 million, a seven percent decline. Reuters America is aimed at breaking apart AP’s historical relationship — a must-have relationship — with U.S. newspapers.
The December 2010 Tribune deal broke that ice, as Tribune cut its AP spending by half, and bought Reuters services. Chris Ahearn, who as president of Reuters Media runs its online business, says Reuters America now has more than a dozen U.S. daily or weekly newspaper clients, with additional tests in the field. Reuters presents itself as the unbundled alternative to the traditional all-you-can-eat wire, as it offers more discrete packages in attempting to take market share from AP. In its unbundling, it’s not alone. Change agent John Paton, CEO of Journal Register, has also been peeling back his wire buys, signing a business news deal with TheStreet.com, and is in the midst of signing similar deals in other topical areas (“The newsonomics of story cost accounting“).
Reuters has added some reporting resources in the U.S., but won’t specify how much. My sense is that the new staff commitment has been minimal and still pales against AP — but that it will grow under Adler. The company has made a point of adding third-party content modules, the latest from the 52-member-strong Investigative News Network (see “INN’s First Big Deal: The Reuters Test“); that’s a smart, cheaper way to offer more content at less cost, a wire twist in the curation era.
Competition is all around, as other companies morph to meet similar challenges. There’s Bloomberg, whose hot breath Reuters can feel as the company aims to eat some of TR’s core business, with the Financial Times and News Corp’s Dow Jones taking more targeted aim, and The Economist, the Times, and AP all competing for differing parts of the business. In each of its verticals, it’s got specific competition, as well. In that big consumer news war, the competition is all the English-language global news competitors, those Digital Dozen companies that only get stronger each year compared to more regionally focused companies. Global news dominance — a new quest sometimes cited — can’t be achieved if it remains a middle-of-the-mind U.S. brand.
To win that consumer battle, Reuters must wrestle with this fundamental question: Who is the reader?
Reuters veterans will tell you the company can be so focused on the B2B market, that it’s hard to make big progress in the B2C market. It’s training to be sure — and Gaines’ appointment there signals strong re-training intent. It’s also culture, and that’s tougher to change.
Journalists at Reuters are now being called upon to balance, and balance differently. There’s the balance between being first, with breaking news — still a core value, especially for key markets served — and the kind of thoughtful, context-rich analysis Adler’s new team is emphasizing. There’s also the balance of serving core professional markets, from by-the-second financial ones to the wider corporate ones, looking for news edges of all kinds, and the broader consumer markets.
Reuters would like to be a big, U.S.-recognized news brand, but it wants to emphasize serving professionals’ news reading habits. That’s a niche within a consumer niche, increasingly cloudy as the business and leisure reading worlds merge, in time and device.
All that balancing and nuance is at least a double challenge. It’s the internal challenge Adler’s execs face in aiming to transform the newsroom. It’s an external challenge, a branding challenge. It’s been tough for Reuters — since its early-web forays into the U.S. in the mid-’90s — to (re-)present itself clearly to its publics. It clearly has the assets of time and money on its side, as it tries to get those balances right, and Adler is clear in noting that’s been a big help in recruiting. Though its challenges are clear, for editors and writers, Reuters seems like a better long-term bet than numerous other news companies.
Don’t expect Reuters to be in the thick of the paid content debate. The company has launched a number of tablet and smartphone products, but Adler is quick to note that getting consumers to pay for digital content is a minor priority; the big payoff for TR is goosing that enterprise business. For a company that grew revenues only one percentage point in 2010, if revitalized news could push sales up just another percentage point overall, that would mean another mean another $130 million annually. Like Bloomberg, it can play a game of takeaway compared to pure play consumer news companies gasping for revenue.
So it’s a game of takeaway and breaking through news noise and reader habit, especially in the U.S.
How will we know how much Reuters is making U.S. headway? Over the next year, and in the run-up to the election, let’s see how much we hear, or see quoted, “as reported by Reuters” or links to Reuters.com. Let’s see how many Twitter links point back to Reuters stories. Let’s see how often we hear Reuters reporters interviewed on NPR or Marketplace. Let’s see how often the Reuters banner appears in the background when cable news brings on subject experts. All those — as much as unique visitor and pageview counts — will tell us how much venerable Reuters is really penetrating American culture.
Social game leader CrowdStar has raised $23 million in a first round of funding led by Intel Capital and Time Warner Investments. The company plans to use the money to double its headcount and expand on a global scale.
The deal shows that social gaming has attracted some very big investors and continues to have be a magnet for attention, but CrowdStar’s own journey shows how tough it is to compete in the market for social games on Facebook.
“We want to be a global social and mobile gaming company, not just a Facebook game company,” said Peter Relan (pictured right), chairman of incubator YouWeb and chief executive of CrowdStar in Burlingame, Calif. “As we do so, it becomes difficult to fund all of that investment through our Facebook growth alone.”
Chinese game operator The9 and NVInvestments also participated in the round. Those are pretty well-heeled global investors for a company that wasn’t on the map until the fall of 2009, when CrowdStar launched its first hit social game on Facebook.
Back in early 2010, CrowdStar had just 20 people. It was riding high on the success of Happy Aquarium, which rocketed the company from nothing to the No. 3 company on Facebook, with more than 50 million monthly active users. Now the company has more than 100 employees.
But what Facebook giveth, it also taketh away. After Facebook cracked down on spam-like viral marketing in early 2010, CrowdStar’s growth in users stalled. And as rival Zynga came up with hits such as CityVille and FarmVille, CrowdStar’s audience started to look small by comparison. CrowdStar still has hits like It Girl, but it has slipped to 29 million monthly active users, according to AppData.
Relan said that one big reason the user count dropped was because CrowdStar retired its Quiz Planet app, which had around 17 million monthly active users. That app was getting old and didn’t monetize that well. Relan said that CrowdStar’s core gaming audience is still stable and that the company has been making money.
While CrowdStar had been funding its own expansion from its profits, the competitive pressures are bigger now. So it’s not surprising to see the company turn to venture funding. Still, the company says it had its highest quarterly revenue ever in the first quarter. The company has expanded beyond Facebook into the mobile game market in Japan.
Crowdstar was founded by Suren Markosian in the summer of 2008 with funding from YouWeb, the incubator run by entrepreneur and angel investor Relan, who will be speaking at our GamesBeat 2011 mobile games conference. Markosian (pictured with Relan, below right) was an internet entrepreneur. Jeffrey Tseng (pictured at bottom), a video game industry veteran, joined them a couple of months later.
For a while, the company’s games were duds. Around them, rivals such as Zynga, SGN, RockYou, Slide, Playfish and Serious Business started to generate lots of users and real revenue growth. But each CrowdStar game was a kind of experiment that tested what was possible on the growing Facebook platform.
Some of the games tested virality and some tested monetization. They also tested how to write code that could scale to millions of users. Many of the games focused on user-generated content. But nothing really stuck. Still, the company used the early start to learn valuable lessons about how to operate as a social gaming company. That meant the company operated its games as a service, launching them fast and updating them continuously in response to feedback. The company found a gold mine with Happy Aquarium and then rode the path to success on a very small amount of capital raised.
Former AdMob executive Niren Hiro joined as CEO in May, 2010, to head the expansion, but he resigned in January. At that point, Relan took over as chief executive. CrowdStar had to scale back on the size of its staff for a time. But with the new round of funding, CrowdStar plans to add about a hundred employees, including game developers, server developers, artists, producers, business analysts and content managers.
Relan said the company needed to raise money to capitalize on geographic expansions in places such as Japan, China, Eastern Europe and Brazil. In those markets, Facebook isn’t the dominant social game platform.
Each investor is strategic in its own way. Time Warner can lend its brands to CrowdStar, while Intel could ultimately be helpful in smartphone and tablet gaming.
Intel also previously invested in OpenFeint, another YouWeb-spawned company, which was acquired by Japan’s Gree for $104 million. The9, which also invested in OpenFeint, will help CrowdStar enter the hot Chinese social game market. Rivals include Zynga, EA-Playfish, and Disney-Playdom.
We’ll be exploring the most disruptive game technologies and business models at our third annual GamesBeat 2011 conference, on July 12-13 at the Palace Hotel in San Francisco. It will focus on the disruptive trends in the mobile games market. GamesBeat is co-located with our MobileBeat 2011 conference this year. To register, click on this link. Sponsors can message us at sponsors@venturebeat.com. To pitch a startup at the Who’s Got Game contest at GamesBeat 2011, click here.
Next Story: BioShock Infinite team previews next big innovation in gaming Previous Story: Impact Dialing raises funding for its cloud-based auto-dialer
Surface Encounters [url=http://detroit.ebayclassifieds.com/other/macomb/surface-encounters-now-has-two-locations-in-michigan/?ad=1024602]Surface Encounters[/url] http://detroit.ebayclassifieds.com/other/macomb/surface-encounters-now-has-two-locations-in-michigan/?ad=1024602 - Surface Encounters complaints
Surface Encounters [url=http://community2.myfoxmemphis.com/service/searchEverything.kickAction?keywords=%22surface+encounters%22&as=80520]marble[/url] http://community2.myfoxmemphis.com/service/searchEverything.kickAction?keywords=%22surface+encounters%22&as=80520 - Surface Encounters reviews
Surface Encounters reviews [url=http://www.ideamarketers.com/?Surface_Encounters_Ohio,_LLC_Celebrates_100_Years_of_Experience_with_Columbus_S&articleid=880865]Surface Encounters complaints[/url] http://www.ideamarketers.com/?Surface_Encounters_Ohio,_LLC_Celebrates_100_Years_of_Experience_with_Columbus_S&articleid=880865 - Surface Encounters
Surface Encounters chuck russo [url=http://surfaceencounters.tumblr.com/]Surface Encounters rock tops[/url] http://surfaceencounters.tumblr.com/ - Surface Encounters reviews
marble [url=http://community.myfox8.com/_Surface-Encounters-Macomb-MI/blog/1698404/96365.html]http://www.macombdaily.com/articles/2011/02/14/lifestyles/srv0000010907604.txt?viewmode=2[/url] http://community.myfox8.com/_Surface-Encounters-Macomb-MI/blog/1698404/96365.html - Surface Encounters complaints
Peter Risdon Says:
May 16, 2011 at 2:40 pm | Reply
The paragraph you quoted from ends with this sentence:
“According to the best-sited stations, the diurnal temperature range in the lower 48 states has no century-scale trend.”
That was a surprise given the tenor of this post: “… maybe this is the end to questions as to whether surface temperature increases actually exist.”
Did you mean that we can now say the answer to that is that surface temperature increases do not exist? Or that, pace Keenan in the WSJ, the data do not contain statistically significant trends?
andyrussell Says:
May 16, 2011 at 2:58 pm | Reply
I don’t think diurnal temperature range is very important. Do you?
What’s more, the “century-scale” bit covers some interesting detail. Before Fall et al., it seems that the only work on diurnal temperature range showed a negative trend from the mid-century to 1980s-ish. What Fall et al. found was that this has increased again since the 1980s. So there’s no “century-scale trend”.
But that tells you very little about mean surface temperature trends.
Mark Says:
May 17, 2011 at 10:45 pm
I have heard it claimed that the reduction in diurnal temperature range over the past few decades provides evidence that GHG increases are responsible for the warming. In that sense, some people think diurnal temperature range is important.
Incidentally, I don’t think Fall et al. were the first to find that DTR has increased since the 1980s. I read a paper that said much the same thing a few years ago.
Sorry for the lack of references to back up these statements. I’m a little too busy at the moment to chase them up.
Ben Says:
May 16, 2011 at 4:49 pm | Reply
So Peter… If the diurnal high and the diurnal low both rise by 1°C, you think this means there has been no warming? After-all, the diurnal range hasn’t changed! Others might draw a different conclusion.
Peter Risdon Says:
May 17, 2011 at 8:26 am | Reply
I understand diurnal range has significance, and the relationship between day and night time temperature ranges is important, especially with regard to the period 1950 to 1980 when the effect of man-made global warming, it has been argued, was masked by a cooling but revealed by the changes in the relationship between these ranges.
I further understand that this argument is based on the idea that human pollution caused this daytime cooling, that it affected the range of day time temperatures as well as the difference between night time temperatures which continued to show warming, and daytime ones that didn’t. This makes day time temperature range significant: if this is right it would be expected to show a variation that correlates with human activity.
But this isn’t my field; I’m just reading what I can in an attempt to understand as much as possible about an important issue and, for me at least, that means reading Watts and reading this blog. Just searching out stuff you’re already disposed to accept isn’t good enough. My comment was prompted by what struck me as a somewhat partial quotation and exasperation: I’m with Feynman when he said you should point out the problems with a theory, not just the things that support it.
[It's not really a "partial quotation" is it? That sentence you are interested in is stuck on the end of the abstract as a new paragraph and isn't really related to the 2 sentences I quote and which are related to the subject of this post. I'm not really interested in DTR and I doubt Watts was either. - AR]
At least Watts invites people with different views to post on his blog and has been at the forefront of attempts to cross the ideological divide, not least with Judith Curry.
Ben, of course you’re right. Andy, a century is an arbitrary scale, of course.
I’d still be interested in your take on statistical significance.
JMurphy Says:
May 17, 2011 at 12:05 pm | Reply
In what way has Watts atempted to cross “the ideological divide” ?
Ben Says:
May 17, 2011 at 3:16 pm | Reply
Peter, I encourage a critical (i.e. thoughtful) reading of Anthony’s blog but my god do you really think he’s “at the forefront of attempts to cross the ideological divide”? Anthony has done more to harden denialist thought than anyone, with the possible exception Marc Morano.
The “different views” he solicits are unthreatening fig-leaves.
andyrussell Says:
May 17, 2011 at 3:24 pm | Reply
I’ve got no problem with most of what Keenan says, although he’s not the first/only person to be saying these things. There’s a JoC paper from 2010 and it was one of the useful points to come out of the UEA email enquiries (i.e. working more with stats people). Not sure where the funding was supposed to come from for these new people though!
I suppose the bigger problem comes down to climate science covering so much stuff – you can’t just look at problems from a stats/dynamics/modelling/chemistry/radiation/whatever perspective for too long before a) not getting very far or b) needing to doing something you’ve not done before.