 |
|
Insights and headlines from Shore analysts on trends in enterprise and media content markets.
|
|
|
| Monday, November 30, 2009 |
  When Google Scholar launched five years ago on the Web, its aggregation of freely available scientific literature and citations launched some sizable seismic activity in publishing circles. All of a sudden, content that had been aggregated only via expensive subscription database services was available for free and accessible as easily as any Web page. Five years later, Google Scholar has expanded to include most freely available academic research sources, as well as abstracts from subscription sources and public patent records and is an increasingly popular resource for researchers and students. However, major aggregators of scientific publications still remain successful, in large part because they continue to develop more sophisticated search and display applications and, well, because time has been on their side. Pressures from Open Access advocates who press for free access to scientific research and an increasing array of applications built using Google Scholar as a source have begun to open major cracks in the barriers to entry into scientific publishing markets, but the people in charge of enterprise purse strings did not use Google Scholar in their university days. So, in spite of budget cuts. the status quo remains largely intact for many scholarly publishers.
 With this in mind, some reasonable skepticism is probably in order as Google announces the launch of a new Google Scholar service that makes full text legal opinions and legal citations available for case documents from U.S. federal and state district, appellate and supreme courts. Public records are becoming more commonly available in general thanks to both Google and other publishers that see opportunities in generating value from public content, so this move should come as no major surprise to anyone. Yet this first major foray by Google into legal content is surprisingly strong - and may be the beneficiary of better timing than earlier Google Scholar product improvements. While legal publishers will rest soundly knowing that the search capabilities for legal documents in Google Scholar are limited to simple "white box" queries, they may not be so tranquil when they look at the results themselves. Documents are rich in links to legal references in the cited documents, a capability that has been for many years one of the key calling cards for legal databases.
 Things get even more interesting when you look at the citations tab that is available for each located legal document. Google Scholar offers you brief, in-context snippets of how a case was cited in key documents, as well as comprehensive listings of citations in court documents and documents related contextually to the selected document. While that's far from the full capabilities that a LexisNexis or Thomson West offer to their professional clients, it's pretty much pointed at the core of their database offerings, nevertheless.
The Above the Law blog has a good summary of analysis and reactions from both legal experts and publishers, but I think that the most salient point comes from Social Media Law Student, which points out that this freely available information is likely to become a "go-to" content source for students who may not have ready access to subscription-based content sources. Looking at the offerings coming to market from Lexis.com, though, which I walked through recently as a part of my SIIA CODiE judging for Best Aggregation Service, it's not as if LexisNexis isn't aware of this "digital native" culture gap, as they try to index both public documents and freely available Web content to make it more accessible to legal students and professionals.
The threat that Google Scholar's new legal content represents to established publishers, though, is the exposure of a huge body of public documents to applications builders and content services. Much as Google Books' scanned out-of-print library holdings have created a resource for ebook platforms from the likes of Sony and Barnes and Noble, this new initiative from Google opens up more cost-effective competition for legal services publishers who may want to attack legal markets from new and innovative angles using Google Scholar as a resource. Some of the innovators may be startup companies in the mold of Collexis, which leveraged publicly available scientific content to showcase their innovative content discovery tools. Others may be business information competitors in adjacent markets, who may see a way to pick off some of the "low-lying fruit" using core legal content maintained by Google.
None of these really add up to a significant challenge to either LexisNexis or Thomson West in the short run, but they will tend to hold down their margins as they lose some market share and lose leverage at the negotiating table at contract renewal time. What this does add up to, though, is a strong case to have professional-grade legal information services more integrated into a far wider array of business information sources to support enterprise decision-making on many levels. If digital natives will have increased access to well-integrated legal content, the high end of legal information markets will need more unique content and integration across a fuller range of business information sources to justify premium prices.
As I mentioned earlier on ContentBlogger, I do think that Reed Elsevier would be smart to consider selling LexisNexis at this time in anticipation of this likely consolidation - or, alternatively, expand its business information holdings to build a broader base of services for LexisNexis. I think that the former is more feasible than the latter given current market conditions, and would enable Reed Elsevier to cash in on the still-formidable value of LexisNexis before it begins to lose significant market growth potential. Thomson was able to spin off its print assets near the peak of their value before print publishing markets ran aground, a trick that Reed Elsevier was not as fortunate in managing in the sale of its Reed Business Information publishing assets. Google's new legal offerings are not a death knell for premium legal information services, but they are a canary in the coal mine for database services based on public legal records. We'll be watching this space carefully in the months ahead. Labels: case law, citations, Google, legal, LexisNexis, public records, Publishing, scholarly publishing, subscription, thomson reuters, thomson west, westlaw
|
|
By John Blossom - posted at 11:18 PM |
permanent link to this entry
 bookmark this entry:
|
|
|
|
2 comments (click to view or to add your own)
|
| Wednesday, November 11, 2009 |
 In a move that shocked many B2B media insiders - including Incisive Media CEO Tim Weller - global information provider Reed Elsevier has announced the resignation of their CEO Ian Smith, to be replaced by Erik Engstrom, CEO of their Elsevier division. While early speculation from FT's Alphaville blog depicted the management shift as " a proper executive-level knifing," more considered comments from industry analysts and insiders in The Independent seem to indicate that Smith was falling on his own sword in recognition of some major challenges not easily resolved by someone with limited media experience. Three key factors were arguing strongly for changes at Reed Elsevier sooner rather than later: the selloff of Reed Business Information assets had stalled, pre-tax profits were down 52 percent in half-year results and investors lacked confidence in both projected earnings and Smith's aggressive recapitalization efforts. With Smith's mentor Jan Hommen having departed from Reed Elsevier's board in January to head the ING bank, a graceful exit was probably in order.
For all of the corporate drama that this move has generated, it's easy to forget that Smith's move to float more stock to reduce debt and to fund Reed Elsevier for more aggressive organic growth was a very sound move, even if it is one that displeases investors in the short term. The real question is whether Engstrom will be up to the challenge of using that capital effectively in a struggling economy. Certainly Engstrom's Elsevier unit is the most effectively positioned business unit in the Reed Elsevier empire today, with deep and widely successful enterprise information products and a growing folio of academic and scientific publications. Yet as relatively strong as Elsevier may be, growth will be a major challenge for Reed Elsevier, even if the economy is laid aside as a contributing factor.
The key problem that Engstrom faces is that few of the tricks that have worked for Reed Elsevier in the past are likely to lead to growth in the future. B2B magazine publishers over-romanticized the likelihood of revenues from traditional channels in the face of massive changes in online information delivery and were therefore ill-prepared to adjust to cutbacks in events attendance and slimmer online ad revenues. At the same time growth by title acquisition, licensing and data integration was making for a relatively rosy top line for Elsevier and LexisNexis but failed to leave enough room in budgets after debt and development costs to fund new product development. Fairly aggressive staff and operations streamlining at LexisNexis have improved the outlook for their business information operations somewhat, but the overall forecast for both LexisNexis and Elsevier highlights modestly incremental product development.
On the surface the smart approach would seem to be to "Glocer-ize" operations at Reed Elsevier as rapidly as possible. Thomson Reuters CEO Tom Glocer moved rapidly in recent years to pare away redundancies and legacy products with limited upside and to focus operations on enhanced integration of enterprise content services across their holdings. Unfortunately there are far fewer synergies available between LexisNexis and Elsevier than those found in Thomson Reuters holdings, with the cultures of the two divisions still remaining miles apart, both literally and figuratively. With ever-broadening competition for the core content licensing services of LexisNexis, including more aggressive development of Dow Jones' enterprise information holdings, Reed Elsevier looks increasingly like a company with one fairly stable boat and three heavy anchors failing to find a bottom.
While speculation remains in the air about a possible move to merge Wolters Kluwer operations in to Reed Elsevier, the more probable short-term solution would seem to lie in disposing of some or all of LexisNexis as promptly as possible while its asking price is still worthy. One possible solution would be to spin off LexisNexis operations to Thomson Reuters or Dow Jones to bolster their competitive positions in legal and business information. Thomson Reuters would be a better strategic fit overall for a spinoff, especially if Thomson Reuters could flip back some or all of its scientific holdings to Reed Elsevier, but regulatory concerns about merging LexisNexis into Thomson West would probably make a wholesale spinoff to Thomson Reuters doubtful. A more probable resolution to overcome regulatory hurdles might lie in offering LexisNexis legal assets to Dow Jones and its news licensing assets to Thomson Reuters, which has lacked archives depth since returning its interest in Factiva to Dow Jones.
Whatever the specific solution may be, Reed Elsevier needs cash to focus on building up its scientific and medical assets for growth as rapidly as possible. Cheap financing as a means to grow stables of titles is off the menu for a while, thankfully, so Smith's forecast for organic growth requires an acceptance that it will have to come by focusing far more aggressively on its Elsevier division. Elsevier is not without its own challenges - scientific publishing faces strong pushback from corporate and academic libraries that find it increasingly hard to afford the full range of journals that most publishers offer - but both scientific research and applied sciences are markets still crying out for productivity gains that would warrant increased product investments. By contrast, productivity in legal markets are moving away from many of LexisNexis' core database strengths, which would benefit from more integration with other platforms.
There's always the possibility that Engstrom may decide to go for short-term gains and shuffle the Reed Elsevier portfolio just enough to tweak out a year or two of decent earnings. Here's hoping that he finds the courage to make some very tough decisions as to what is likely to provide the best returns for Reed Elsevier investors in both the short run and the long run. Moving on a sale of LexisNexis, by far the most attractive disposable asset available from Reed Elsevier, will enable them to take advantage of its value while it still has some attractiveness in the enterprise information marketplace. Without further integration of their information with financial market information and successful media operations, LexisNexis is not likely to contribute significantly to Reed Elsevier growth for some time to come. We'll see how Engstrom decides to cut his losses, but here's hoping that his moves help to strengthen both Reed Elsevier and enterprise information markets overall. Labels: business, Business Information, Deals Partnerships and Sales, Dow Jones, elsevier, engstrom, enterprise, legal, LexisNexis, management, reed elsevier, scientific, technical, thomson reuters
|
|
By John Blossom - posted at 10:20 PM |
|
permanent link to this entry
bookmark this entry:
|
|
|
|
3 comments (click to view or to add your own)
|
| Wednesday, October 14, 2009 |
 A recent press release from Autonomy hailed an IDC report that gave them the leading market share for the search and discovery technology market. While congratulations are no doubt in order for Autonomy, which has thrived as other major competitors have struggled to gain momentum in general enterprise search markets, there's a wrinkle to this boast that should give one pause to wonder. Sue Feldman's indicating in the report that Autonomy has a 14.4 percent share of the search and discovery market in 2008, which is certainly nothing to downplay but also not a crushing dominance of this market. In other words, even the world's dominant enterprise-oriented search technology provider is little more than a niche player.
This is in part because there really isn't "a" search technology marketplace in any strict sense of the term. That may sound strange at first, but it's certainly true that search as a content location tool can only measure its success against very specific needs. Each enterprise, each publisher and media outlet, each marketplace has specific needs for content that determine whether a particular technology has been well tuned to its needs. We can use tech terms such as precision and recall to define in general terms how effective a search technology may be in returning useful information, but if a technology can't deliver editorial value very specific to an enterprise, it's just a general tool that is rapidly and easily commoditized rather than a powerful content tool.
The importance of catering to very tailored content delivery needs was underscored in my mind by a recent chat with Craig Carpenter, Vice President of Marketing for Recommind, a company providing content categorization and discovery tools that are finding particular success in legal and corporate compliance markets. Recommind has focused its capabilities on supporting functions such as e-discovery processes that enable an organization to understand what documents relate to a particular legal matter in the early phases of assessing a case. Going through emails, word processing and other unstructured enterprise documents rapidly to determine which ones relate to key figures in a legal matter or or compliance issue is a good stress test for any search technology. With recent U.S. government rules encouraging the use of electronic tools to accelerate content discovery, Recommind is one of a few companies that are well positioned to both accelerate compliance with those expectations and to eliminate legal expenses associated with the discovery process.
Certainly companies like Autonomy may be competitive in such situations, but when companies such as Recommind are focused more deeply on the needs of specific market sectors, they become, in effect, like subscription enterprise information services, delivering highly relevant content rapidly and reliably. There are, in truth, fairly few ways to attack search from a technology standpoint, so the most profitable victories in enterprise search and discovery technologies tend to go to the companies that have technology that is highly tuned to the very specific needs of a given market or client. That doesn't necessarily make one technology better than another in attacking those problems, but oftentimes only better tuned and one step ahead of other technology providers. So the fact that a company like Recommind is down in the depths of tuning their technologies to legal discovery and corporate compliance can offer them better margins for solving more focused, high-value enterprise problems - often the same kinds of problems that many enterprise publishers are trying to solve.
I do think that companies like Recommind that have done the heavy lifting on difficult enterprise search problems in specific sectors or problem sets can turn out to be double threats in enterprise content markets. Not only do they get to solve higher-value problems that are easier to measure for ROI, they also get to redefine market opportunities into other adjacent markets that may be difficult for others to attack. For example, when you look at the technology issues behind legal discovery, corporate compliance and more general high-value enterprise problems such as records management and knowledge management, there's a lot of overlap with a whole different range of technology services providers. On the other side of the spectrum, being able to categorize and organize content for the legal sector very effectively also begins to nibble at the opportunities for subscription enterprise services such as Thomson West and LexisNexis, which are also focusing more on semantic content organization but not necessarily with the deep technology focus of niche players such as Recommind.
Of course, the opposite forces of two-sided competition from large rivals can push back at niche-oriented technology players, but in general today's markets seem to be favoring specific solutions that make specific pains go away quickly in enterprises, with more general solutions with bigger tickets and fuzzier ROI being strung out on longer sales cycles. I don't think that we'll be seeing many new players like Recommind entering enterprise markets any time soon, but I do think that those that were able to get launched and cash-positive in the past few years are going to be tough competitors in the two-prong fight for content and technology dominance in the enterprise. Individually they may not take up anything like a 14 percent share of search and discovery markets, but when you look at their ability to respond to the best revenue opportunities within those markets, you can pretty much forget about the pie as a whole and start looking for the plums inside the pie that matter most. Labels: autonomy, categorization, compliance, content technology, discovery, enterprise, legal, LexisNexis, recommind, search, thomson west
|
|
By John Blossom - posted at 3:29 PM |
|
permanent link to this entry
bookmark this entry:
|
|
|
|
6 comments (click to view or to add your own)
|
| Wednesday, October 01, 2008 |
 I am going to be moderating a panel on the opportunities for publishing in cloud computing on November 19th - more to come on that - so needless to say my head is in the cloud (computing) to some degree already. But when Microsoft announces a major initiative to adapt its Windows operating system for cloud computing for Amazon's web services platform you know that the balance of power is shifting away from enterprise servers faster than you might think. This is great news for network services providers and potentially good news for Microsoft, whose desktop Windows operating system is becoming ever more ponderous and is being readied for a crash diet. The bottom line from a technology perspective is that we're returning to the days of complex technology being "out there" in the network and user-oriented technology being oriented away from general computing and towards serving up content from network services. The move towards cloud computing may seem rather "back to the future" in some ways for those of us who lived through the days of mainframe computing and (really) dumb terminals, but when did it really make sense for companies to have thousands of dollars of over-complex content and software on people's desks in the first place? The network is the natural place for most content services to live, making it far easier for peers to communicate and collaborate with one another as publishers and to provide them with the ability to benefit from sophisticated services with a minimum of in-your-face technology hassles. This is no surprise to publishers that are succeeding with the move to online digitual publishing services, but it does pose an issue for content and technology companies that had been focused on enterprise sales. In recent years much of the "value-add" component for sophisticated enterprise content services and the technologies that support them has revolved around tailored software and information services based on integration with enterprise I.T. platforms. The early enterprise entrants in cloud computing such as Salesforce.com's network-based services have strong participation from many enterprises, but the big push for margins has positioned many enterprise content providers towards strategic sales that involve I.T. teams in major companies. Cloud sales were an investment in the future, to be sure, but present revenues were focused behind the firewalls of enteprise publishing clients oftentimes. Clearly the rapid acceleration of enteprise-oriented I.T. services towards network services available via highly scalable Web infrastructure is going to put more and more pressure on this line of marketing for high-end enterprise publishers. Web services, which enable publishers to integrate their content easily and rapidly with other content via standardized programming techniques, are flourishing in cloud computing environments, enabling user-defined "mix and match" content services intergrated into a wide variety of platforms and productivity tools. This is good news for publishers who want to get their content up and running as quickly and as easily as possible in enterprise-oriented applications - but bad news for publishers who wanted to sell people on the idea that doing so was really expensive and hard. The go0d news for enterprise publishers is that cloud computing is likely to spawn a widening breed of tailored content applications that can be deployed more rapidly and efficiently. Long and risky product development cycles for advanced publishers are likely to give way to general frameworks for cloud-enabled content applications that will have easily tailored core functions that can be changed to meet individual client needs more rapidly. In the process of doing so, many major aggregators may begin to look at what their real core strengths need to be, leaving some likely to look further and further afield for just the right content sources to aggregate as needed for specific client applications. Instead of focusing on database curation, it's more likely that tomorrow's major enterprise publishers will be focused on Web services curation, being experts in assembling just the right content from any number of databases and Web sources that meet their clients' needs. While in many instances existing staff skill sets will be transferable to the cloud computing environment, I expect that more than a few of the major publishers are ill prepared for the cultural leaps required to survive and to thrive as content services experts in cloud computing. We're all familiar with the reogranizations that have been the focus at major enterprise publishers such as LexisNexis that are aimed at blasting away very I.T.-centric product development cultures in favor of more client-centric cultures. What happens when the Web services-centric model of cloud computing impels these companies to accelerate the culture change for their core revenue lines that much more quickly? There are great opportunities for major publishers in the shift to network-oriented enterprise services, but I suspect that more than one five-year plan may be floating out their H.Q. office windows shortly as the depth of the impact of cloud computing services on the enterprise content industry becomes more clear to them. Labels: amazon, cloud computing, enterprise, LexisNexis, Microsoft, publishers
|
|
By John Blossom - posted at 9:07 PM |
|
permanent link to this entry
bookmark this entry:
|
|
|
|
6 comments (click to view or to add your own)
|
| Thursday, February 21, 2008 |
 Reed Elsevier is doubtless looking over its shoulder at the Thomson/Reuters merger as of late and wondering how they can improve shareholder value in troubled times for traditional publishing against this looming B2B database giant already divested of print publications. Well, when the going gets tough, the tough buy databases would seem to be the answer to the wondering. USD 3.6 billion later Reed finds itself lining up to be the proud owner of ChoicePoint, one the world's leading collectors of data on individuals used by businesses, governments and non-profits for a wide array of marketing, credit scores and background checking functions. Barron's notes that this deal has been in the works for about two years, but clearly the accelerating of scale by other B2B database providers has Reed eager to get some good news on the radar for shareholders. AP notes that ChoicePoint will be merged with Reed's LexisNexis risk business unit, with expected redundancies on tap as a result for LexisNexis employees. The flip side of this deal is Reed's decision to let go of Reed Business Information, its B2B trade publishing unit that contributes about 20 percent of Reed's overall revenues today. With ChoicePoint's annual revenues a tad higher than RBI's and with considerably better growth prospects from ChoicePoint in the near term this an acquisition that fits in very well on the balance sheet. RBI's strong events production unit will be retained, though, as noted by Bloomberg News. With rapidly softening print ad revenues, a slowing business cycle and a very slow transition to online publishing and advertising as a mainstay, B2B media properties are not going to be the margin-producing machines they once were - a conclusion that Thomson had come to several years ago. The deal offers Reed a number of great opportunities for revenue growth. With deeper personal profile data LexisNexis could develop more sophisticated analytics tools for the enterprise using data collected from other LexisNexis databases and also begin to widen the array of consumer-oriented information analytics that can help people to assess how the world views them as a risk. In a security-conscious world with lots riding on personal risks the value of these services certainly makes for a good investment. But there's a lot of unexplored territory around the potential for this kind of personal data to drive new types of electronic marketing. Generating marketing lists from a database is one thing: being able to match up online profile data to ChoicePoint profile data could give marketers a far more precise view of who they should be trying to reach online via ads and other marketing services. This last point is key to the decision to drop the RBI division at this time and to hang on to the events properties. It used to be that magazines drove events: these days it's far more the case that events drive magazines, with the relationships formed in face-to-face events becoming far more important marketing vehicles than ads placed next to editorial content which is increasingly being replicated in a multitude of online content outlets. Overall it's probably better for Reed to focus on high-value human interchanges for B2B marketing and to focus its advertising efforts on helping marketers via personal metadata found in ChoicePoint and other databases to target the right people through any number of online and offline marketing channels. Most all of this is good news for Reed Elsevier in the short run and even quite good for the long run for shareholders looking for steady returns. With the rise of online publishing one needs to accept that the huge influx of investment into new publishing technologies and business models makes it increasingly untenable to maintain the illusion that you can provide steady cash-cow returns in a sector that has reinvented itself around the long-term payoffs to be gained from risky startups. Apparently unwilling to risk margins on traditional editorial models in this environment and having missed most of the choice opportunities to move aggressively into online publishing Reed is probably best off punting its print-centric properties to those better suited for turning aging cash cows into hamburger. If there's a potential sticking point in all of these moves it's that Reed Elsevier is moving one very control-oriented database culture into the arms of another control-oriented database culture. That bodes very well for the LexisNexis family of databases itself but not necessarily well for a division which in some ways was having trouble looking beyond traditional I.T. infrastructure and search applications into the markets' broader needs. Many changes have been undertaken already in LexisNexis to deliver more responsive product development but perhaps one of the more interesting aspects of this merger to watch is how ChoicePoint's dual focus on enterprise and consumer database services might influence LexisNexis product development. With more sensitivity to how individuals interact with databases in a public Web environment there may be some interesting product insights working their way into the LexisNexis fold as well. Labels: ChoicePoint, credit scores, Deals Partnerships and Sales, LexisNexis, personal data, Reed Business Information, reed elsevier, risk
|
|
By John Blossom - posted at 2:26 PM |
|
permanent link to this entry
bookmark this entry:
|
|
|
|
0 comments (click to view or to add your own)
|
| Wednesday, September 05, 2007 |
 IT Week offers an article by Tim Buckley Owen of Information World Review that is a bit of a hatchet job on LexisNexis, Thomson and other business information providers. Owen quotes anonymous sources who paint a picture of subscription database services providers defending pricey offerings against users more adept at finding their own sources online. The criticisms are not so different from what we at Shore have heard in our private research but it is interesting to see some of these in print for the world at large to consider. Some of the key quotes include: “Although the sector boasts a lot about listening to customers, this is largely not so,” says one independent business information consultant. “Customer consultation is often just going through the motions because it’s expected or it looks good.” "Even the shortfalls in the content would not be so unpalatable if we were informed about them in advance, understood the rationale or had clearer information on what the content includes," a librarian at a leading law firm adds. LexisNexis adds that it does face competitive pressures: "Content that was previously impossible to access without a premium subscription is now often available for free on the web. New open solutions have been developed and consumer expectations have risen dramatically." While this is hardly stuff that should shock the typical business information company executive it's indicative of the frankness that many of their customers are expressing to them - and of their own recognition that the business information industry is changing rapidly. Where a few years ago some usability enhancements on a search interface and a few new subscription sources could be touted as major enhancements by subscription database providers today these same improvements ring rather hollow in the ears of enterprise customers learning how to leverage Web technologies to get smarter faster than ever before. It's not even a matter of the bloom being off the rose: the rose of business information services is in danger of being uprooted altogether by enterprises in search of competitive advantages. This is not all bad news for business information providers. In many instances companies like LexisNexis and Thomson are already all over this trend and moving aggressively into software services that can help to enable productivity and revenue generation for their clients. But the greater truth revealed by this rantish article and our own research is that the efficiencies of relational databases are being overcome quickly by the dominance of I.T. cultures in business information companies built around inflexible relational database technologies and the equally inflexible product design and support that results from these technologies. The result is cultures ill adapted to shed antiquated product concepts and to work more flexibly in Web-centric environment to deliver the products that users really want to use in ways that they want to use them. You can do all the user interviews, surveys and focus groups that you want but if you're applying those insights to an outdated platform your ability to leverage those insights is not going to pay back the dividends that they should. Business information providers will continue to leverage existing relational databases profitably for some time to come, but at some point in the not too distant future they're likely to face the same crises faced by information giants such as Reuters as they realized that their allegiance to profitable but outdated platforms meant costly catch-ups in both product design and corporate culture in order to survive. It's time for business information companies to embrace user-driven content aggregation and generation technologies and to start enabling productivity benefits that may have little to do with how existing platforms are configured. There are many interesting trends in business information that hold out promise that this is going to happen, but timing will be everything. Labels: Business Information, LexisNexis, Thomson
|
|
By John Blossom - posted at 4:06 PM |
|
permanent link to this entry
bookmark this entry:
|
|
|
|
1 comments (click to view or to add your own)
|
| Tuesday, April 03, 2007 |
Two major conferences focusing on business information services point towards two very different approaches to creating revenues and profits from today's enterprise and media markets. Yet both database publishers and media companies are circling around many of the same opportunities to develop value for business information markets. The battle for the future of business information has just begun in earnest, with no clear winners in sight but with many "old guard" attitudes from both camps in dire need of ejection from the scene. Click here to read the full News AnalysisLabels: Business Information, enterprise, Factiva, LexisNexis, media, News Analysis
|
|
By John Blossom - posted at 1:25 PM |
|
permanent link to this entry
bookmark this entry:
|
|
|
|
1 comments (click to view or to add your own)
|
To top of page  |
|
|
|
|
|
