Is Data the Salvation of News?

Doubtless by now you’ve heard the buzz around the travel news start-up called Skift. Skift is the brainchild of Rafat Ali, the founder of PaidContent. Skift appears to be a disruptive entry into the B2B travel information market, and seeks to distinguish itself through a fresh style of reportage and eclectic editorial coverage (news of innovative airport design merits the same level of coverage as news about major airlines). Given Rafat’s track record and the fondness these days for all things disruptive, Skift has recently attracted an additional $1 million from investors. Where this gets really interesting is that Skift wants to broadly cover the incredibly huge global travel industry with only a handful of reporters. That means Skift will deliver a mix of original reporting along with licensed and curated content. So where’s the innovation and disruption? The answer, in a word, is data.

Skift’s plan is to deliver most of its news free on an advertising-supported model, but to also offer paid subscriptions (reportedly to range from $500 to $1,000) to give subscribers access to travel data. It’s no surprise then, that Skift is positioning itself as a “competitive intelligence engine.”

Skift may be on to something. I first got interested in the intersection of news and data back in 2007, when I read some fascinating articles written by Mike Orren, the founder of an online newspaper called The Pegasus News. Orren had discovered that despite his focus on hyper-local news, the editorial content that consumers are ostensibly hungering for, fully 75% of those who came to his site were there for some sort of data content. Others in the newspaper industry have also reported similar findings.

In this context Skift seems to have a firm grasp of the new dynamics of the information marketplace: while there is an important role for news, it’s increasingly hard to monetize. That’s why news married to data is a much smarter business model. News provides context and helps with SEO. It can be monetized to some extent through advertising. Data offers premium value that is easily monetized with a subscription model, and the two types of content, intelligently combined, offer a compelling, one-stop proposition to those who need to know what’s going on in a specific market.

This is, of course, a conceptually simple model that not too many legacy news publishers have been able to execute on. That’s because the two types of content are inherently distinctive, from how they are created to how they are sold. Perhaps a disruptive market entrant like Skift will be able to crack the code and produce both types of content successfully itself. Personally, I think the fastest and surest path to success is to build strong partnerships with data publishers.

Drawing the Line: Customers as a Data Source

Today’s New York Post reports that Bloomberg was confronted by Goldman Sachs for allegedly allowing its journalists to tap into subscriber usage data. It is early into this event, and still unclear what the ultimate impact  on Bloomberg might be, but regardless of outcome, this remains an area of  acute importance to all data publishers. That’s because data publishers  often have access to potentially confidential and valuable information,  and the slightest misstep could put your whole business at risk by  destroying customer trust.

The Bloomberg case was actually pretty tame in many respects: a Bloomberg reporter called Goldman Sachs to inquire if a partner was still working there because he hadn’t logged into his Bloomberg terminal for a long period of time.

Login data provides one level of insight into the activity (or non-activity) of your subscribers, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg. If you know what job function a particular subscriber performs, and also what that subscriber is searching on, you could potentially get insights into new product development activity, sales strategy or even potential acquisition targets. You see where I am going, and hopefully you also see why you should never go there. Your subscribers, often unknowingly, are trusting you with a lot of potentially sensitive and valuable information. It’s your duty to guard it carefully.

I’m not suggesting that there is any issue with aggregate analysis of activity against your database to better understand what your subscriber base as a whole is interested in so that you might improve your product. But whenever you start associating specific search and view activity with specific subscribers, you need to be very careful.

Depending on the markets and the job functions you serve, you may even want to re-think if, say, your customer service people should be able to view a specific subscriber’s saved searches. And even something as innocuous as putting up a list of “most viewed companies this week” could inadvertently reveal too much if you operate in a tight vertical.

Too often these days, I am seeing people do things because they can, not because they should. Technology is often addictive in this way. But I urge you to look before you leap. Trust is easy to lose, hard to regain and essential to your success.

Enigma: Disrupting Public Data

Can you actually disrupt public data, which by definition is public, and by extension is typically free or close to free? Well, in a way, you can. A new start-up called Enigma, which can be thought of as “the Google of public data,” has assembled over 100,000 public data sources – some of them not even fully or easily accessible online. Think all kinds of public records from land ownership, public company data, customs filings, private plan registrations, all sorts of data, and all in one place.

But there’s more. Enigma doesn’t just aggregate, it integrates. That means it has expended tremendous effort to both normalize and link these disparate datasets, making information easier to find, and data easier to analyze.

The potentially disruptive aspect to a database that contains so much public data is that there are quite a few data publishers with very successful businesses built in whole or in part on public datasets.

But beyond the potential for disruption, there’s some other big potential for this (I’ve requested a trial, so at this point I am working with limited information). First, Enigma isn’t (at least for now) trying to create a specific product, e.g. a company profile database. Rather, it’s providing raw data. That will make it less interesting to many buyers of existing data products who want a fast answer with minimum effort. But it also means that Enigma could be a leveraged way for many data publishers to access public data to integrate into their own products, especially since Enigma touts a powerful API.

The other consideration with a product like this is that even with 100,000 datasets, it is inherently broad-based and scatter-shot in its coverage. That makes it far less threatening to vertical market data publishers.

Finally, Enigma has adopted a paid subscription model, so it’s not going to accelerate the commoditization of data by offering itself free to everyone and adopting an ad-supported model.

So from a number of angles, this is a company to watch. I’m eagerly waiting for my trial subscription; I urge you to dig in deep on Enigma as well.

Google: An Unstable Platform

Google appears to be near a settlement with European Union regulators over alleged anti-competitive practices there. A broad outline of the proposed remedy for this activity is beginning to emerge, and it’s fairly remarkable. The remedy has two parts. First, all Google services that appear in search results would appear in a separate box and be labeled as sponsored content. Even more remarkably, Google would be required to show search results for up to three of its competitors whenever it displays a result containing one of its own services.

Now before you get too excited, remember this settlement only applies to Europe. Don’t expect to see it in the United States anytime soon, if ever.

The core issues underlying this settlement are intriguing. Can a search engine be accused of anti-competitive behavior for favoring its own services in search results? The publisher in me says “yes,” because Google is rolling out more and more content, and it has a massive, unfair advantage over any publisher it competes with.

Google would probably respond to this by saying its dominance in search comes from providing really good search results, and that’s what will ultimately constrain its behavior. If Google gets too cute with users by pushing its own products too aggressively, users will desert it for another search engine. I buy this argument to some extent, but it also downplays the power of user habituation, and Google’s unique ability to promote its own products inside seemingly organic search results.

I know more than a few publishers who have woken up in the morning to find their traffic - and by extension their businesses - had dried up because Google had tweaked its search algorithms. I know why Google did this, and agree they should have the right to do this. But it leaves a trail of wreckage in its wake. And Google’s seemingly accelerating push into the content business seems likely to have the same effect.

The bottom line is that Google has evolved over the years, and consequently publishers need to evolve in their thinking towards Google. The term “frenemy” was coined to summarize our confusion about how we should best interact with Google. The emerging reality seems to be that while Google can still bring benefit to all of us, it’s a mistake for any of us to depend on Google for our business. That’s a big statement to make, but from both a strategic and operational perspective, Google is an unstable platform.

A Plug and Play Publishing Platform?

Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corporation, an independent company with such an extensive relationship with Dun & Bradstreet that it was even granted use of the vaunted D&B name, has been targeting smaller businesses with not only traditional D&B credit products, but a beta offering of what might be called a “next generation credit rating,” a so-called credibility score that examines the company from a number of different non-financial perspectives, yielding a letter grade and presumably an online trust mark that companies can use to build confidence with both suppliers and customers. It’s a clever and ambitious concept. And there are some serious resources behind this venture: Boston-based private equity firm Great Hill Partners is backing the venture with in excess of $100 million. In an apparently related development, D&B Credibility recently announced the launch of the “Credibility Review Business Marketplace,” an innovative move to partner with publishers to extend the reach of its credibility ratings, by turning B2B data publishers into a sales channel. D&B Credibility indicates a number of publishers have already signed onto this program.

I’m still waiting to get full details on this program from the company, leaving me free to speculate wildly, a favorite pastime. Here’s what I picture:

D&B Credibility has licensed access to the full D&B business database, and this provides a content backbone to the initiative. When it emerges from beta, D&B Credibility will presumably move to aggressively sell credibility scores to smaller businesses. Each sale yields a richly detailed business profile (part of the score involves “transparency,” so participating companies are obliged to supply all sorts of useful information – smart!) that the participating company is highly motivated to keep current (yielding high leverage user-generated content). These enhanced listings are added to the basic listings in the content backbone.

To accelerate adoption of the credibility scores, D&B Credibility will partner with publishers on an intriguing offer: a self-maintaining database offering a growing number of credibility scores, that the publisher can access for free in exchange for selling credibility scores (and anything else it wants) to companies in its vertical market.

As I envision it, publishers would simply flag the companies they want to appear in their vertical market buying guides, getting in effect a customized view of the larger database. The publisher codes each company against its own vertical market taxonomy, and presto-whammo, it’s got a high quality database that costs almost nothing to build or maintain. All it has to do is sell the credibility scores and other advertising to companies that it has flagged. For trade magazine publishers in particular, selling ads is a true core competency, where database development and maintenance is not.

What’s in this for D&B Credibility? It gets a revenue cut from every credibility score a publisher sells. It gets all the company information being collected (everything goes into its backbone database), and it gets valuable help in building momentum and acceptance for its scores.

Is this a good deal for publishers? When it comes to vertical market buying guides, the majority of publishers have unevenly maintained databases with limited company information. This approach not only goes a long way to solving the twin issues of data quality and data depth, it also provides the ability to sell a new and useful offering – a B2B trust mark.

Fascinating stuff, and well worth watching as the product rolls out from beta.