 "Indian financial journalism is well ahead of China: John Micklethwait")
John Micklethwait took over as editor-in-chief of the $9-billion Bloomberg Group this February. Formerly editor-in-chief at The Economist, he oversees editorial content across news, newsletters, magazines, television, radio, digital and research services at Bloomberg. Vanita Kohli-Khandekar interviewed him in New Delhi earlier this week. Edited excerpts:
Editorially, what is the relationship between Bloomberg's terminal business and its media business?
(Note: 325,000 Bloomberg terminals offer stock market, analysis and other information to corporate subscribers who pay $24,000 a year for it. This brings in more than 80 per cent of Bloomberg's revenues.)
What role ownership structure plays in bringing out a good editorial product?
The beauty of both The Economist (where he worked earlier) and Bloomberg is an independent ownership structure and financial profitability. Bloomberg's business structure is oriented towards the terminal business. The proprietor (Michael Bloomberg) keeps out of the journalism. Other brands don't always have that luxury. People who are trying to chase clicks are drawn into conflicts.
If the terminal business subsidises the news, doesn't that give rise to conflict, too?
Not really. Editorially, there are some things on the terminal that are not on the website. For instance, Bloomberg Intelligence is only a terminal product. There is a lot of journalism we do on the website, too. But that is consumer oriented. The terminal has a lot of complicated financial stories.
What do you notice on what audiences consume across media or geographies?
The main thing that comes across is quality. If you break news of an interest rate change three seconds ahead, the impact is straight forward. But the less obvious one is the story that suddenly does well. About 80-90 per cent of the stories that do well on the terminal, do well on the website. Something like video that just works on the website sometimes does well on the terminal, too. We have in the past few months put a greater emphasis on our purpose - being the 'Chronicle of Capitalism'. This means focusing on building our core areas - business, finance, markets, economics, technology and power (politics and government) for the reader who is in a hurry. And after that, we can do interesting stories. For example, we did one on a weird kind of nut in the Amazon or how big game is going to hunt genetically-engineered species. But people come to Bloomberg because it is the Chronicler of Capitalism.
You are across so many disparate media, is there a unifying editorial goal? How do you measure performance?
We look and see what sticks. We do that more on the terminal, get rid of stuff that is not working. Imagine a piece on distress debt in the Mumbai property market read by 150 people or one on Narendra Modi or Pakistan which has 10,000 hits. If a few people read and saved thousands of dollars because of the distress debt piece it is of incredible value. So, while one measure is circulation or audience numbers, the other is the impact.
The challenges of operating a global media brand in India…
I met Narendra Modi and Rahul Gandhi over the weekend. This might not have happened 10 years ago because Bloomberg was smaller. So, in terms of access it works well. Our coverage is done by an excellent blend of people drawn locally and from outside. And even if it was a small market (revenue wise), we would still invest because of its size. (Note: The China section of The Economist was launched under Micklethwait's editorship.)
How important is democracy and a liberal media market from a coverage perspective?
Democracy and free speech help reporting. India has the strictest censorship of maps, far worse than China or Pakistan. But it is very good on free speech. Financial journalism usually goes through three phases. The first is driven by public relations. In the second phase, anything goes as competition increases. The third is when quality begins to push through. Indian financial journalism is well ahead of China, but not at the same level as some Western countries.
But isn't China a big outlier in the argument that democracy, a liberal media and economic growth go hand in hand?
I have written a book on this (The Fourth Revolution). The Chinese model worked at a stage, it is a more international model than the Soviet one. The Chinese learnt the advantages of meritocracy. And the one disciplining thing is of always changing power at the top. Therefore, there is more democracy and merit to its model.
Editorially, what is the relationship between Bloomberg's terminal business and its media business?
(Note: 325,000 Bloomberg terminals offer stock market, analysis and other information to corporate subscribers who pay $24,000 a year for it. This brings in more than 80 per cent of Bloomberg's revenues.)
More From This Section
Quite a lot of the news that goes on the terminal also goes on the website (after a 15 minute lag). A lot of the big news stories are put straight on the website. But there are a lot of stories - say on breaking merger and acquisition deals - that will go first on the terminal. And, usually, the website stories work well on the terminal and vice-versa. Our advantage is the 2,500 journalists and research staff and 150 bureaus we have in 73 countries. Whether something is happening in Frankfurt or Mumbai, we can go straight to the scene. We are now beginning to take more advantage of that.
What role ownership structure plays in bringing out a good editorial product?
The beauty of both The Economist (where he worked earlier) and Bloomberg is an independent ownership structure and financial profitability. Bloomberg's business structure is oriented towards the terminal business. The proprietor (Michael Bloomberg) keeps out of the journalism. Other brands don't always have that luxury. People who are trying to chase clicks are drawn into conflicts.
If the terminal business subsidises the news, doesn't that give rise to conflict, too?
Not really. Editorially, there are some things on the terminal that are not on the website. For instance, Bloomberg Intelligence is only a terminal product. There is a lot of journalism we do on the website, too. But that is consumer oriented. The terminal has a lot of complicated financial stories.
What do you notice on what audiences consume across media or geographies?
The main thing that comes across is quality. If you break news of an interest rate change three seconds ahead, the impact is straight forward. But the less obvious one is the story that suddenly does well. About 80-90 per cent of the stories that do well on the terminal, do well on the website. Something like video that just works on the website sometimes does well on the terminal, too. We have in the past few months put a greater emphasis on our purpose - being the 'Chronicle of Capitalism'. This means focusing on building our core areas - business, finance, markets, economics, technology and power (politics and government) for the reader who is in a hurry. And after that, we can do interesting stories. For example, we did one on a weird kind of nut in the Amazon or how big game is going to hunt genetically-engineered species. But people come to Bloomberg because it is the Chronicler of Capitalism.
You are across so many disparate media, is there a unifying editorial goal? How do you measure performance?
We look and see what sticks. We do that more on the terminal, get rid of stuff that is not working. Imagine a piece on distress debt in the Mumbai property market read by 150 people or one on Narendra Modi or Pakistan which has 10,000 hits. If a few people read and saved thousands of dollars because of the distress debt piece it is of incredible value. So, while one measure is circulation or audience numbers, the other is the impact.
The challenges of operating a global media brand in India…
I met Narendra Modi and Rahul Gandhi over the weekend. This might not have happened 10 years ago because Bloomberg was smaller. So, in terms of access it works well. Our coverage is done by an excellent blend of people drawn locally and from outside. And even if it was a small market (revenue wise), we would still invest because of its size. (Note: The China section of The Economist was launched under Micklethwait's editorship.)
How important is democracy and a liberal media market from a coverage perspective?
Democracy and free speech help reporting. India has the strictest censorship of maps, far worse than China or Pakistan. But it is very good on free speech. Financial journalism usually goes through three phases. The first is driven by public relations. In the second phase, anything goes as competition increases. The third is when quality begins to push through. Indian financial journalism is well ahead of China, but not at the same level as some Western countries.
But isn't China a big outlier in the argument that democracy, a liberal media and economic growth go hand in hand?
I have written a book on this (The Fourth Revolution). The Chinese model worked at a stage, it is a more international model than the Soviet one. The Chinese learnt the advantages of meritocracy. And the one disciplining thing is of always changing power at the top. Therefore, there is more democracy and merit to its model.