Bloomberg and Reuters: The Coke and Pepsi of journalism?

Bloomberg and Reuters are not only healthy: unlike most of the journalism industry, they're growing. That’s because the two publications have something no other player in the news business does: subscription-only financial data and services that pull in billions of dollars.

Mary Altaffer/AP/Pool/File
In this file photo, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg presents the Fiscal Year 2013 preliminary budget in New York. Along with Reuters, the Bloomberg publication is cornering the journalism market, with billions in funding allowing for top flight journalist and editor salaries.

Very tough to make a go of it in the journalism biz these days without the stream of revenues coming in from a terminals business (Bloomberg gets at least two grand a month per installed terminal - that pays a lot of editor and reporter salaries).

AdWeek is calling the two news n' data giants in this duopoly "The Future of Journalism"...

Awash in subscriber revenue, Bloomberg and Thomson Reuters are those truly rare things: news organizations that not only are healthy but also are on a hiring spree. Bloomberg boasts about 2,400 edit staffers, up from 2,100 three years ago, while Thomson Reuters has added 600 full-time journalists over the past four years for a total of 3,000. Each employs more newspeople than The New York Times and The Washington Post combined.

In Bloomberg’s case, the handsome newsroom salaries are legendary. “They’re spending like drunken sailors on all these top-flight journalists,” grumbles an exec at a competing media company. “It’s allowed them to corner the talent market.” That’s because Bloomberg and Reuters have something no other player in the news business does: subscription-only financial data and services that pull in billions of dollars.

Compare that to the calamitous newspaper industry, where some 13,400—about one-fourth—of newsroom jobs were lost between 2006 and 2010, according to Pew’s State of News Media 2012 report. As that carnage continues, consumers remain steadfast in their refusal to pay for news online—and news outfits are left scrambling to figure out a profitable future.

Tough to take on Coke and Pepsi, but not impossible - there's always been a Dr Pepper kickin' around after all.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.