@emilybell: I think @felixsalmon's idea would be morally wrong and also professional suicide. What do you think?
@mathewi @emilybell tell that to everybody at Reuters and Bloomberg, it's what we do! Have we all committed professional suicide?
@emilybell @mathewi @felixsalmon how is this any different than what Reuters does? the entirety of the wire is only available to clients
@mathewi @felixsalmon I can only see bad things coming from it for sure. As I say - useful thought exercise for J School ethics class- @felixsalmon @emilybell: for Bloomberg, the terminal data business is core -- consumer news is an add-on. NYT is different
- @felixsalmon @mathewi in fairness you sell wholesale info services... You don't offer one-off stories to hedge funds for a bucket of cash...
- @emilybell @mathewi I wasn't suggesting that the stories be sold on a one-off basis. I was thinking more of a $1m/yr NYT wire service.
- @felixsalmon @emilybell: and wire subscribers would get a full trading day advance notice of a big story? I don't think that would fly
- @AntDeRosa @mathewi @felixsalmon nyt can construct a higher priced fence round any info they choose, but brand might suffer in a b to c biz
- @felixsalmon @emilybell @antderosa: I think it matters that the NYT puts readers first, not traders -- Bloomberg does the opposite
- @mathewi @emilybell @antderosa OK, but now we've changed the conversation: it's about branding, not ethics.
- @felixsalmon @emilybell @antderosa: I think it's unethical too, if only large hedge funds get access -- what about the individual investor?
- @mathewi @emilybell @antderosa so, again, you're saying that Bloomberg is unethical because individual investors can't afford its product?
@emilybell @felixsalmon @mathewi If scoops don't matter to most readers, as digerati claim, logic = sell them to those who do value them- @mathewi @johngapper @felixsalmon but also maybe not more lucrative, Bberg and Reuters have totally different cost structure for services
- @johngapper @emilybell @felixsalmon: it would turn the NYT into a very different sort of business -- maybe more lucrative, but different
- @mathewi @emilybell @antderosa So therefore the NYT should be barred from learning from the more-financially-successful Bloomberg?
- @dsquareddigest @mathewi @emilybell @antderosa if you pay $20k/year for the wire, you get stories faster than if you go to the website.
- @emilybell @felixsalmon @antderosa: so NYT story says "our hedge fund clients read this exclusive yesterday and have already traded on it"
- @emilybell @felixsalmon @antderosa: that sends a very different message about who the NYT values than its stories do currently
- @mathewi @felixsalmon @dsquareddigest @emilybell @antderosa PS I'm not sure it would work for NYT but early access is a logical premium tier
@felixsalmon @emilybell @mathewi The model would probably be WSJ Professional, which gives early access to premium subscribers.
Sorry, @felixsalmon I think you've gone off the reservation with this one: reut.rs/I8euYQ- @charlesforelle @pegobry The distinction is material *non-public* information. Once it's on a wire, it's public and fair game to trade. +
@felixsalmon @mathewi @emilybell @antderosa Bloomberg doesn't sell differential access to news stories. It really doesn't.
mathewi
Mathew Ingram
I'm a senior writer at GigaOm, a former journalist with the Globe and Mail and co-founder of the mesh conference in Toronto
Share & notify
Notify
140
