Bookraft

One of the positive changes in Business Week which Bookraft has noted since the takeover by Bloomberg has been the increased use of media and sophistcated charting. It is not yet at the frequency and caliber of the NYTimes, but it is a welcome step in the right direction. However, a second "Bloomberg" phenomena is the tendency for Bloomberg BW to deliver a lot more Short n'Tweet stories in the vein of Thomson Reuters and in contrast to the more lengthy and/or analytic posts found at say the Financial Times, Forbes, or the Wall Street Journal. The screenshot below is an example of the BBW tweets:

The advantage of these BBW "sweets" is that they convey essential news on more diverse front very quickly. This also caters to a tweet audience that wants "just the flaps,mame, just the flaps". No analysis or details please. These "sweets" readers will decide if they want to read any more details or analysis and as can be seen from the screenshot BBW does provide relevant links to further reading.

However, Bookraft is just a bit leery of such brevity for four reasons. First the abbreviation may snip out some crucial details. The 150-250 word BBW "sweet" does not give BBW writers and editors much room to maneuver. Second, one of the reasons to go to BBW is specifically for its details and analysis. One pays for WSJ or the Financial Times precisely for the specific details and analysis they chose to deliver. If BBW wants to have a paid for online edition, it will have to stand and deliver. Third, often the links to related stories do not provide the relevant material one would like or anticipate for informed follow-up. The related links seem automated and limited to 5-6 items maximum. Fourth and finally, web page change is one of the most expensive and time consuming operations on the Internet - to get so little for such an operation is deflating. It has all the look and feel of those cheapo Google Adsense Aggregator websites whose native content is minimal and all the rest ads and/or derivative/repetitious feed.

Now BBW can edit out many of these objections easily. First, have writers supplement the automated related links with 2 or 3 of their own links [including offsite references]. After all, Google and wikipedia have it right, the strength or value of a post is proportional to the relevance and value of its links. Perhaps the links would be to articles that fill in on the omitted details. A second strategy would be to aggregate these BBW tweets into topical sections. Then each BBW tweet would have its own 2-5 related links. In addition it could have positioning in the section based on how many related links are followed or some active user star rating system. But the key is to avoid the Cheapo Aggregator look of one small item surrounded by tons of advertising. A third course may be to double tweet - increase the size of the post to an executive summary which is about 400-600 words and 2-3 paragraphs. This tactic would avoid the Cheapo Aggregator look yet still retain the tweets emphasis on maximum info communication.

Finally, Bloomberg has access to huge reams of financial and economic data. they should have their staff become familiar with how to quickly develop diagrams/charts or be able to draw upon a constantly refreshed stable of great media => charts, images, video, and animations. Each section of "sweet" stories then would be able to draw upon the best condenser of stories - relevant media. These charts, diagrams and pictures act not as fluff but carry crucial info and replace words with "see fully" evidence.

Summary

In sum, the online Bloomberg Businessweek's use of "Sweets" - short and tweet-like stories - has the advantage that it caters to the Web 2.0 crowd that wants their facts in 140 words or less. But it also presents dangers to the publication as well. Bookraft will be following the evolution of these BBW "sweets" closely.