WEBVTT

1
00:00:00.100 --> 00:00:14.400
[upbeat music] Before we get to this week's episode, a quick message from our sponsors at Beehiiv.

2
00:00:15.100 --> 00:00:24.720
Just Women's Sports is a new media property that started in the typical way. They started simple, podcast, social clips, but a big mission. And then they realized something.

3
00:00:24.940 --> 00:00:32.920
If you don't own your audience, you don't own your growth. So they ended up branching out into newsletters with Beehiiv, and it changed everything.

4
00:00:33.360 --> 00:00:44.240
Now their newsletter is the hub that connects their podcast, website, and brand deals all in one place. It is proof that you can take control of your audience, and when you do so, you take control of your business.

5
00:00:44.700 --> 00:00:59.720
If you are building pretty much anything in media, that is where you need to start these days, because we have seen before what happens when you become over-reliant on platforms that control distribution and monetization.

6
00:00:59.740 --> 00:01:04.420
Beehiiv helps creators like Just Women's Sports turn attention into recurring revenue.

7
00:01:05.010 --> 00:01:18.660
And with their team of newsletter experts helping you handle switching platforms or creating something new, you can have a newsletter ready to go in days, not weeks. Learn more at beehiiv.com/enterprise.

8
00:01:18.740 --> 00:01:35.520
That is B-E-E-H-I-I-V.com/enterprise. Thanks a lot, Beehiiv. Okay, welcome to the Rebooting show. I am Brian Morrissey. This week, my guest was The Economist president, Luke Bradley Jones.

9
00:01:35.620 --> 00:01:47.330
You know, one of the core challenges facing legacy media brands is how to compete in a decentralized media environment that rewards individual voices over a collective institutional voice.

10
00:01:47.540 --> 00:01:50.900
And that was the way to go in the analog era.

11
00:01:51.320 --> 00:02:04.040
Just think of the retreat from newspaper political endorsements, and even how editorial boards overall feel like anachronisms and have far less impact in the discourse, as they say, than prominent individuals.

12
00:02:04.700 --> 00:02:20.320
And this is a challenge for a brand like The Economist, mostly because it has been so successful in building a collective voice for the brand around its small L liberal belief in free markets, free trade, and free political systems.

13
00:02:20.380 --> 00:02:30.040
It's, by the way, a set of beliefs that were the default during globalization, but, uh, are now under threat, if not in retreat, in many, if not most parts of the, of the world.

14
00:02:30.900 --> 00:02:34.620
One of the defining aspects of The Economist has long been its lack of bylines.

15
00:02:34.980 --> 00:02:44.900
This signals that the magazine, or, or newspaper, as it likes to call itself, is a manifestation of what Luke calls the hive mind of its editorial team.

16
00:02:45.620 --> 00:02:59.780
You know, The Economist has rollicking debates over its editorials, or leaders, as it calls them, and comes to a rough consensus that hews to an editorial line that, for the most part, has been consistent for the past hundred fifty or so years.

17
00:03:00.420 --> 00:03:06.660
So the question ends up becoming how to modernize this approach while not losing what made the brand distinctive in the first place.

18
00:03:06.700 --> 00:03:13.900
So for The Economist, that means lifting the veil on this hive mind process to uncover how the sausage is made.

19
00:03:13.930 --> 00:03:23.140
It did research, and it found that by keeping its journalists somewhat anonymous, that had led to a little bit of intrigue.

20
00:03:23.260 --> 00:03:42.380
And so they are putting that to use by making its journalists more front and center now, whether that's helming newsletters or podcasts, and particularly through its new twice-weekly streaming show, The Insider, which features The Economist journalists, as well as guests digging into the biggest stories of the week.

21
00:03:42.950 --> 00:03:45.680
An early episode set off a little micro drama.

22
00:03:46.080 --> 00:04:00.940
I don't think we can have full dramas these days, just micro dramas, with Steve Bannon when he told The Economist's somewhat incredulous editor that she needs to accept the fact that Donald Trump will again run for president, even though he is not eligible to run for president.

23
00:04:01.020 --> 00:04:01.200
So

24
00:04:02.180 --> 00:04:17.560
Luke and I get into all of this and, you know, how The Economist finds inspiration from Ferrari in trying to be a luxury brand and why human-crafted journalism is actually well-positioned in an AI-mediated media environment.

25
00:04:18.040 --> 00:04:28.200
Hope you enjoy this episode. As always, send me a note with feedback. My email is brian@therebooting.com. And if you like the show, please leave it a rating or review. Now here's my conversation with Luke.

26
00:04:31.880 --> 00:04:42.460
[upbeat music] Luke, thank you for, thank you for powering your way through The Economist security system. It was worth it, Brian, to be here with you. [chuckles] There you go.

27
00:04:43.080 --> 00:04:53.760
So anyway, this is something new we're trying called TRB Live, and it's, it's a way, you know, to build off of, you know, both the online forums we've done that have been successful, but also the podcast.

28
00:04:53.860 --> 00:05:03.960
And I wanted to-- Luke and I have been talking about doing a podcast, and I was like, "You know, we're gonna be touching on The Economist streaming show, and so let's, let's do this live."

29
00:05:04.040 --> 00:05:13.190
And so we had a little, we had a few, you know, snafus, but that's okay. So we're gonna talk a lot about... The Economist is, is one of my favorite brands. I gotta say that, Luke. Thanks.

30
00:05:13.280 --> 00:05:23.380
I have actually one time, even before I was in this profession, I visited where The Economist's, St. James's Place, I think it was, or maybe called St. James or something. I have no idea. Yep.

31
00:05:23.540 --> 00:05:31.500
But I went there- It's a street... it was like a pilgrimage as, like, a student because I was so into The Economist. I was a bit of a weirdo. But, like, I think,

32
00:05:32.680 --> 00:05:45.979
when I think about, like, what, what brands are, like, well-positioned right now, I think The Economist has a lot of the ingredients for a successful brand, you know? And that is that it's incredibly strong brand.

33
00:05:46.040 --> 00:06:01.060
It's got a very deep connection with its audience, with a big subscription business. And it also is focused on a very lucrative area, which i- is, you know, the sort of global elite, if you will.

34
00:06:01.700 --> 00:06:20.128
And I, I think that there are, you know, a lot of different ways that you can make money with, with a brand like this, and it's a very differentiated brand.So I wanna get into to that with you and how you take this great base, obviously, that The Economist has and modernize it, 'cause every brand needs to, to modernize it.

35
00:06:20.208 --> 00:06:28.768
So thanks for, for, for joining us, Luke. Thanks for having me, Brian, and I'm glad to count you among our global elite, and [laughs] I'm not a global elite.

36
00:06:28.788 --> 00:06:37.688
But, you know, any of those elite brands, you know, there, there's always the people who are, like, pushing their, their nose up against the glass that are the bigger numbers than the actual elites.

37
00:06:37.788 --> 00:06:43.308
So, you know, that's just how the racket works. Anyway, so let's get, let's, let's get into it.

38
00:06:43.368 --> 00:06:53.368
Like, I, I was doing, like, a little, like, SWOT analysis of The Economist before this, and, you know, I went through some of the strengths. And I think one of the interesting...

39
00:06:53.377 --> 00:07:03.197
'Cause I always think one of our strengths are usually, you know, ends up being challenges, right? And I think of The Economist as having an incredibly strong institutional voice, right? But- Right...

40
00:07:03.228 --> 00:07:15.168
we seem to be in this age of, like, individuals, right? And how I think every brand has to figure where they play along that spectrum. So let's just start by, like, how do you end up thinking about that?

41
00:07:15.928 --> 00:07:19.588
Yeah, so it's, it's an interesting s- sort of circle to try and square, right?

42
00:07:19.668 --> 00:07:28.848
Because historically we have been renowned for having no bylines in our printed product, whether that's the, the weekly print edition or the, or what we publish online.

43
00:07:29.648 --> 00:07:43.868
So we've had what we'd like to call a hive mind of The Economist's journalistic newsroom producing this very, very well thought through, very clearly reasoned, fact-based, independent point of view, and that is The Economist's point of view.

44
00:07:44.008 --> 00:07:53.108
It's, it's our collective viewpoint on the world and the stories that matter, shaping the, the, you know, today and tomorrow around the world, and that's really been a signature of our journalism.

45
00:07:53.508 --> 00:08:15.058
So then, you know, kind of forward into the 21st century and the advent of digital and then the advent of podcasts and increasing the importance of, of video in, in all forms of journalism, and we realized that we had to find a, a way to sort of strike the right balance between that very kind of deeply, deeply held point of view that, that there's nothing more important than The Economist's point of view.

46
00:08:15.728 --> 00:08:35.988
Also starting to make sure that we bring more, more personality into some of our journalism in those, in those audio and video channels, and actually whether we serve a, like, a growing audience desire to, to really get closer to our journalists, and that probably is shaped by some of those broader trends that you talk about, the importance of personality and the importance of individual voices.

47
00:08:36.328 --> 00:08:38.708
And I don't think we're ever gonna go right down that route.

48
00:08:38.768 --> 00:08:47.688
But what we are gonna do is w- w- we're lifting the veil, and we have lifted the veil already on our journalists, on our newsroom, and that started with podcasts over the last two or three years where we have- Yeah...

49
00:08:47.708 --> 00:08:56.808
five weekly podcasts hosted by the same people. Those people have followings. So we're not in the business of kind of keeping our co- our journalists completely anonymous. You know, they're listed on our website.

50
00:08:56.868 --> 00:09:04.328
We're very proud of who they are, and a number of them have got real followings in social. So they don't have to sign a kind of a, an oath of secrecy when they, when they join The Economist.

51
00:09:04.898 --> 00:09:10.048
[laughs] And podcasts have been a good way of just sort of breaking people into that more public realm. Yeah.

52
00:09:10.068 --> 00:09:20.048
But the, the, the thing which is really taking it up a notch is the, the, the new premium video product that we just launched three, three and a half weeks ago called The Economist Insider. Yeah.

53
00:09:20.088 --> 00:09:22.348
And that for the first time is actually really fully...

54
00:09:22.388 --> 00:09:34.507
Instead of having kind of produced podcast shows on topics which have been pre- predetermined, that is lifting the veil on the discussions, the debates that go into those hive minds, you know, written articles that appear in the weekly edition.

55
00:09:34.518 --> 00:09:44.368
And so we have a weekly show every Thursday hosted by our editor in chief, Zanny Minton Beddoes, and our deputy editor, Ed Carr. They are the, they are the two co-hosts of the show every single Thursday.

56
00:09:44.377 --> 00:09:52.688
And then we have a second show every Tuesday which deep dives into a range of topics from geopolitics to defense to economics and, and technology.

57
00:09:53.368 --> 00:09:57.048
And they're all hosted by the same people if, you know, for each of the shows as they come around.

58
00:09:57.108 --> 00:10:09.028
So we're gonna start making, if not superstars out of these people, then certainly they're gonna become known as the hosts of these shows, and the shows are gonna be watched by, already are being watched by a, a really decent number of people every week.

59
00:10:09.088 --> 00:10:20.048
And, and that, that I think is where we're gonna try and strike this balance where the, the core written product, which is the majority of our output, remains no bylines, remains the, the collective viewpoint of The Economist brand.

60
00:10:20.768 --> 00:10:20.778
Yes.

61
00:10:20.788 --> 00:10:45.388
But every week we're gonna lift the veil with The Economist Insider on a Tuesday and on a Thursday, and you're gonna see inside, you know, sort of behind the, behind the curtain, as it were, and see how the magic is made and really get closer to the senior editors that are, that are shaping the stories that we, we print every week in our, in our- Yeah, and I guess that will also, like, provide a look into the sort of debates that go into coming up with an institutional point of view.

62
00:10:45.468 --> 00:10:54.158
Because I think about, you know, like a lot of times in America, we go back to, like, the editorial page endorsements of, like, political candidates, right? Right.

63
00:10:54.168 --> 00:11:04.508
And the idea that there's, like, an editorial board is a little anachronistic in these, in this day and age. You know, I know, like, The Washington Post, you know, famously sort of pulled its endorsement of Kamala.

64
00:11:04.588 --> 00:11:15.328
I'm not sure if people vote based on, like, who the newspaper editorial board says to vote for, but, like, there's this idea that it's just this one, like, voice from above, right?

65
00:11:15.428 --> 00:11:25.668
And obviously with the rise of podcasters, there's a lot more trust in individuals. But talk to me about the, the strategic context of what...

66
00:11:25.698 --> 00:11:35.948
Like, what is the job that, that the streaming show, The Insider, is going to do? I mean, you're... Like The, The Economist is part of The Economist Group, right?

67
00:11:36.108 --> 00:11:51.928
Its, uh, subscriptions are, you know, the lion's share of the business. You have, I think, uh, about 1.25 million subscribers. Digital is obviously growing very quickly. 85%, I believe, of new subs are now digital. Yep.

68
00:11:52.308 --> 00:12:04.608
So is this a... So what is the job this is doing? Is this to, is this to mitigate churn? Is this to bring in new subscribers, or is this to diversify with, with sponsorship?

69
00:12:04.628 --> 00:12:16.408
I mean, I know that Claude is, is at least the launch sponsor. Correct. I, I think it's a mixture of, of a number of those things, but first and foremost, it's really delivering on what our-... customers were asking for.

70
00:12:16.478 --> 00:12:26.368
So the first thing I did when I arrived here just over a year ago is commission a big piece of research to understand which elements of our proposition, our service, were customers satisfied with, what did they want more or less of.

71
00:12:26.448 --> 00:12:33.428
And the, and the theme that came out of that incredibly clearly was that, that customers wanted to get closer to our journalists.

72
00:12:33.468 --> 00:12:39.018
They want to understand more of the thinking behind what they were reading every week in the written output. And they wanted to have- Yeah...

73
00:12:39.038 --> 00:12:43.198
more of a chance to ask questions, they wanted to have to be in a conversation, is that proximity.

74
00:12:43.208 --> 00:12:58.028
And actually, at the same time, I went along to my first Monday morning meeting, and I'd been a subscriber to The Economist for however many decades, but had never realized kind of when you get this polished output, this very clear, settled, authoritive point of view on, on a big story, right?

75
00:12:58.068 --> 00:13:07.628
As if it's kind of absolutely- On literally anything, too. I'm like- On whatever, whatever you might want... the confidence of saying what Sri Lanka needs to do [laughs] in its trade policy does it, like, it's amazing.

76
00:13:08.048 --> 00:13:17.108
No doubt. No doubt. And yeah, I went into this Monday morning editorial meeting which happens every, every week, the whole other newsroom gathered in person and, and Zoomed in from around the world.

77
00:13:17.928 --> 00:13:29.878
And the level of discussion, debate, discourse that was happening around each and every lead article being published that week. So the, the author would pitch their idea, that every... This happens every Monday.

78
00:13:29.928 --> 00:13:37.928
They pitch their idea to the newsroom, they get sort of five minutes to talk through, you know, kind of what they're gonna say about, you know, Iran-Israeli relations, whatever it may be.

79
00:13:38.448 --> 00:13:47.268
And then the whole other newsroom gets to opine on that point of view. So hands go up, Zanny's chairing the meeting, and you get this really robust debate.

80
00:13:47.308 --> 00:13:55.708
It's like a kind of, it's like a university tutorial on steroids where you have this just sheer brainpower- Yeah... dissecting whatever's been proposed.

81
00:13:55.748 --> 00:14:04.668
You know, kind of saying what's missing, what's wrong, what they disagree with, what they agree with. And then the, the, the, the author has like a couple of minutes to respond to this like litany of points.

82
00:14:05.018 --> 00:14:11.628
And off the back of that, Zanny chooses the leaders, and those leaders then go and get written and published in that week's weekly, weekly edition.

83
00:14:11.668 --> 00:14:18.708
And that's kind of the linchpin of our output, those leading articles are kind of our point of view on the most important stories or the most interesting stories of that week.

84
00:14:19.108 --> 00:14:30.268
And I sat there and it just blew me away seeing that kind of discourse and debate that, that feeds every single point of view that then gets positioned and published as a very clear, authoritive perspective.

85
00:14:30.308 --> 00:14:39.468
And I kind of thought l- if, if I find that so interesting as, as a longtime subscriber, and I've got this research in my hand saying that's what customers are after, how do we bring that to our customers?

86
00:14:39.498 --> 00:14:49.628
And short of inviting them into the newsroom every Monday, this'd be a little bit, little crammed for space, why don't we create a show where the editors all get together and r- and replay some of that debate?

87
00:14:49.708 --> 00:14:57.278
And that's what we're doing in our weekly show- Yeah... every, every Thursday with Zanny. So right now it's open to everyone, but this is gonna be subsc- I think it is. I'm a subscriber, so like- It's- I, I...

88
00:14:57.968 --> 00:15:03.368
subscribers only. It's open to all our subscribers. Yeah. We've made it available to all our subscribers. Okay. And we're off to a great start.

89
00:15:03.428 --> 00:15:11.688
So kind of three weeks in, we've got about 20% of our base have already watched at least one episode. A really good share of that base have watched two or more episodes.

90
00:15:11.768 --> 00:15:19.088
So we've seen really rapid early adoption of the service. Given it's completely new, we've started from 0% awareness on October the 9th.

91
00:15:19.608 --> 00:15:31.368
Three weeks in, we're, we're up at 20% of the base already using the, using the product. So you're basically betting that this kind of insider approach to video can be a subscription product.

92
00:15:31.408 --> 00:15:45.938
I mean, usually I think people think of video as more of a top of the funnel product. Advertisers love video, et cetera. Right. Like it just plays in- into that. I don't think people are as habituated to...

93
00:15:46.428 --> 00:15:55.308
Or maybe not, maybe... I, I just see video used differently a lot of times. So wh- why, why is this important to...

94
00:15:55.378 --> 00:16:02.808
I would guess it's to keep subscribers happy, finding value, and therefore it, the job it does is churn mitigation. But- Yeah...

95
00:16:02.848 --> 00:16:14.348
you know, I'm sure you think that The Economist has 1.25 odd million people paying them, that there can be several million other people who are paying. And there's 10 million people who are...

96
00:16:14.378 --> 00:16:23.148
There's 10 million plus people who are play- paying The New York Times. Right. I didn't think that that would ever happen. Why wouldn't- Right... there be 5 million people paying The Economist? I would like that.

97
00:16:23.208 --> 00:16:28.828
I'd like that a lot. Yeah. And listen, I hope- Make it happen... inside of play- plays a role in that, right? Because we're going out, we're breaking these shows.

98
00:16:28.928 --> 00:16:38.488
Part of how we're making the shows is we're interviewing interesting people. So in our second week we interviewed Steve Fannon. We wanna make sure we've got a, a wide array of, of personalities- Broke news there too...

99
00:16:38.498 --> 00:16:43.088
there too. Pardon? Broke news. Not, not the best part of n- not, not the best news to break, but broke news.

100
00:16:43.128 --> 00:16:52.148
It certainly got some attention, so it went viral on, on social and, and got a lot of, lot of pickup in a lot of different outlets. And that sort of thing really just, you know, kind of gives oxygen to the brand.

101
00:16:52.168 --> 00:16:58.928
And, and we're not gonna go, we're not gonna, we're not gonna chase clicks, but we are gonna interview people who we think have got a really important point of view.

102
00:16:58.968 --> 00:17:05.908
And, and whether or not you agree with him, half of America agrees with him, so we want- Yeah... to hear what he have to say and, and, and give him a chance to talk about that.

103
00:17:05.938 --> 00:17:15.288
And so that's the sort of the show that we're trying to make where we, we have really robust debates, some f- often just amongst ourselves, but often with guests who might have the same or a different point of view.

104
00:17:15.348 --> 00:17:25.128
You know, the week before we had Mark Carney, where there's probably a lot more alignment with our, with our subscribers in terms of his world outlook, but that's gonna do a great job for helping attract people to the brand as well.

105
00:17:25.228 --> 00:17:37.208
But I think more than anything, Brian, you know, apart from giving customers what they said they wanted, the strategic value of this is that we are really trying to build a moat around what product is in a world of AI, right?

106
00:17:37.288 --> 00:17:57.108
And as, as the kind of the, the volume of AI-generated content continues to grow and people get used to LLMs and AI aggregators over time, and they get their news from that source, how do we create something that's truly differentiated that is leaning into what is unique about The Economist, which to my mind is a human-crafted, artisanal journalism.

107
00:17:57.228 --> 00:18:07.098
It's the sort of the, you know, we see parallels with some of the top fashion brands out there who really think about the quality of what's made and how it's made, and the fact that that is human originated.

108
00:18:07.668 --> 00:18:14.668
And by leaning into that video product, we're putting our human senior editors right front and center of that experience.

109
00:18:14.778 --> 00:18:26.554
And so we also see it as a, as a really valuable, kind of a robust way of, of defending against some of the trends coming out of the AI space right now.Yeah. Talk to me about it being like a premium product, right?

110
00:18:26.604 --> 00:18:38.974
Because, I mean, The Economist costs a lot of money, right? Like, I think your average revenue per subscriber is probably twice what the Times is and thereabouts.

111
00:18:39.023 --> 00:18:49.344
And I think the Times just came out, they're at, like, $10 per month- Yeah... or 120 or so a year. My napkin maths put you guys somewhere around 220 or something of that nature.

112
00:18:49.464 --> 00:19:00.544
But, like, talk to me about, like, how you play on that premium. And because like, like you were saying, like, luxury brands have struggled honestly with digital media because it's harder.

113
00:19:00.864 --> 00:19:12.404
It liter- the, the entire point of the internet i- sort of runs against, like, what, uh, luxury. It's, it's anti-scarcity. It's anti-friction. Yeah. I mean, I don't know, like- Yeah...

114
00:19:12.424 --> 00:19:20.724
you go around Milan, you gotta, like, ring doorbells to get into stores just to buy something. Right. I don't know if you've thought about trying that. Maybe that's something. [laughs] We've, we've thought about it.

115
00:19:20.804 --> 00:19:30.114
We've thought about it. And scarcity is a really, you know, fascinating topic, and, and the best brands have managed that very well. You know, Enzo Ferrari, you know, had this, this famous saying that he wanted- Yeah...

116
00:19:30.114 --> 00:19:34.644
to make one fewer Ferrari than there was demand for in the world, which is a really- Yeah...

117
00:19:34.654 --> 00:19:46.524
neat way of thinking about how you sort of really control- And also by the way, ano- another brand that is, like, literally their, their ecosystem around it are people that do not actually own Ferraris. Yeah, absolutely.

118
00:19:46.784 --> 00:19:53.284
Yeah. [laughs] They've, they've, they've got a lot of... They've got, they've got a big ecosystem, and, and not that many- Yeah... people buying them, but it works very well for them.

119
00:19:53.424 --> 00:20:08.064
And so we've thought about that, but I kind of, to limit the number of people who could have The Economist feels a little bit counterintuitive when, you know, part of our mandate is to spread the word and play, you know, you know, influence people around the world and their points of view and their, and their decisions.

120
00:20:08.084 --> 00:20:16.934
Mm-hmm. So I... It's, it's an interesting concept, but it's not one that we've decided to run with yet to actually limit the number of subscriptions that we put out in the marketplace. Yeah.

121
00:20:16.944 --> 00:20:31.424
But what we can do is we can, we can create content that is scarce in its nature, and we think, you know, to have access to the editor-in-chief of our, of, of The Economist every week is something which is unprecedented for existing or historic customers.

122
00:20:31.544 --> 00:20:43.464
And if we do that, and we don't make it available anywhere apart from behind our paywall, then that creates something which is really valuable and quite scarce in nature for our existing customers and our future customers.

123
00:20:44.244 --> 00:20:56.964
So do you have, like, a big subscriber goal, paying subscriber goal? Like, I mean, you know, I think, again, I go back to The New York Times. You know, they go out and, and put a big subscriber number out there.

124
00:20:57.324 --> 00:21:03.874
They're, they're aiming- They do... to be 15 million by the end of 2027, and I think that can be, like, galvanizing.

125
00:21:04.384 --> 00:21:14.064
I'm just wondering what the ambitions are because as I said, like, I think you guys can probably, I would guess your research shows that you can play on both sides of the price curve.

126
00:21:14.513 --> 00:21:28.564
There are people, and I think this is the tricky part when you're gonna be, like, a luxury good, is you probably have a lot of people who are paying you 200 odd dollars a year that should be paying you thousands of dollars a year or could be paying you thousands of dollars a year.

127
00:21:29.344 --> 00:21:40.644
Right. But, and you know, I think you guys tried this with Espresso and whatnot, there's a lot of people who would absolutely love to have access to The Economist at a slightly different price point. Yeah.

128
00:21:40.944 --> 00:21:44.924
We've had that debate for sure, and, uh, we've run the numbers on a few different options.

129
00:21:45.064 --> 00:21:53.504
I think where we've netted out is we do wanna keep growing our customer base, but we're in the business of positioning ourselves as a premium brand.

130
00:21:53.564 --> 00:22:10.064
And so rather than going after volume growth at all costs, we wanna make sure that we continue to invest in what The Economist experience is and what The Economist brand stands for, but that we maintain that premium positioning in terms of our offering, in terms of our pricing, in terms of our brand positioning.

131
00:22:10.724 --> 00:22:14.404
So, you know, we don't... We're, we're, we're not in the same game as The New York Times.

132
00:22:14.434 --> 00:22:22.043
New York Times have deliberately discounted very heavily, you know, lowered their, you know, their ups over time, their, their average revenue per user's gone down.

133
00:22:22.564 --> 00:22:30.554
They've really aggressively gone after that volume, and obviously that drives a big advertising machine for them as well. They're a different beast. They're a different brand. They've...

134
00:22:30.584 --> 00:22:35.184
What they're doing, they're doing incredibly well. I have nothing but admiration for how they're executing on their strategy.

135
00:22:35.704 --> 00:22:45.504
But I think we are, we're more of a kind of, as we've talked about, an exclusive and, and premium brand where we're gonna... We're, we're playing more in that sort of scarcity end of the, of the spectrum.

136
00:22:46.064 --> 00:22:57.904
Okay, so no dollar a week offers. You can't be Gap. You can't be always 50% off. And there is a, like... Look, there's, there's a formula with that volume playbook. I think not everyone can, can run it.

137
00:22:58.104 --> 00:23:04.134
I think some brands, it's a little bit of an awkward fit when I see them out there with their 80% off offers. Right.

138
00:23:04.134 --> 00:23:11.734
Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I'm like, you can't be, you can't be saying you're premium, [laughs] premium out there, and then, like, in the email- It's like going to-...

139
00:23:11.734 --> 00:23:20.374
you're telling me you're 80% off all the time. [laughs] Yeah. Yeah, yeah. It doesn't, doesn't sit well. So talk to me a little bit about, like, how you end up...

140
00:23:20.884 --> 00:23:25.644
What does that mean with, like, what you end up not doing, right? Like, so what are opportunities?

141
00:23:25.694 --> 00:23:35.854
'Cause I think there's a, a- as I said, there's a lot of different directions you can take a, a brand like this, and it has, you know, The Economist goes back to, what, 1843.

142
00:23:35.984 --> 00:23:41.744
I think it was, like, we're debating the Corn Laws or something, and it was a little bit of a different era.

143
00:23:41.804 --> 00:23:54.784
And so there's a lot of different things you can do to that, but at the same time, your restriction is you gotta, you gotta, you gotta stay premium. We've got a relatively small newsroom compared to our competitors.

144
00:23:54.824 --> 00:23:59.864
You know, we have just over 300 people in our newsroom, and that's, what, probably 1/10 of what The New York Times have.

145
00:23:59.944 --> 00:24:23.314
So we think, we've thought about whether we expand that and whether we expand our coverage, but actually to maintain the level of quality and rigor that goes into every single word that you read or every single podcast that we publish, and now every single show that we make each week, you can only broaden that bandwidth so far without having some sort of compromise to the consistency- Mm-hmm...

146
00:24:23.344 --> 00:24:33.860
and quality of what you produce. So-We deliberately have not invested into lifestyle. We have not expanded coverage into more generalist news. We haven't gone into sports.

147
00:24:34.040 --> 00:24:49.120
You know, these are areas, A, which are very well served by the market, but B, which would inevitably involve a broadening of our proposition and, and would risk the, the, the, the, the incredible level of rigor and care that goes into every single piece of journalism that we put out each week.

148
00:24:49.180 --> 00:25:06.140
We, we by design have a smaller output, and that allows us to be, you know, kind of incredibly thorough in our fact-checking, which is sort of one of the, one of the hallmarks of our journalism that allows us to have a very, very thorough editing process, which involves the, the senior team every single week.

149
00:25:06.160 --> 00:25:17.440
So they're very hands-on in terms of their involvement and, you know, kind of putting the, putting the weekly edition to bed every, every week on a, on a Wednesday evening is always, you know, a-- it's a crafted process.

150
00:25:17.600 --> 00:25:28.540
It's really is sort of hand-stitched. And so I think- Yeah... in that way, that means that we can't ever try and go broader in our journalistic coverage. Yeah. If there is-- So, so talk to me about the magazine.

151
00:25:28.720 --> 00:25:35.200
I mean, you guys call it a newspaper. We do. I call it a magazine. Fair enough. But I know I'm never gonna win that one. But that's fine. It's still a magazine to me.

152
00:25:35.300 --> 00:25:40.120
But like, you know, look, it's, it's inevitably like, you know, the question ends up being like what is the role of it?

153
00:25:40.200 --> 00:25:52.320
I think of The Economist as like a slightly different-- like, I mean, I-- there, there are print publications that I, I just, I want as print and I consume mostly as print. The Economist is actually one of them.

154
00:25:52.380 --> 00:25:58.560
The FT Weekend is, is another and then, you know, niche magazine type brands. But what do you-- what is it?

155
00:25:58.640 --> 00:26:10.000
Because I mean, that is the calling card and in some way, in some ways it's a little anachronistic, but I, I feel like, you know, with, with The Economist being-- like I don't think of The Economist as like breaking news.

156
00:26:10.120 --> 00:26:20.660
I know the, the- Yeah... the Bannon thing with the third term was, was, was one. There's, there, there have been others. But I look at The Economist actually as being, you know what?

157
00:26:20.680 --> 00:26:27.620
There's a swirl of stuff going through the week. I'm fine waiting till Saturday to figure out what [chuckles] like what all this stuff means.

158
00:26:28.360 --> 00:26:37.180
So what is the end up, you know, when you're thinking about expressing the brands, whether that's in podcasts or in video, and then we can talk about events.

159
00:26:37.220 --> 00:26:50.240
Like how do you end up thinking about the, the magazine/newspaper? Because it is, it is the core of the brand- Yeah... but it's not the only thing the brand does. Yeah. It's a really interesting balancing process, right?

160
00:26:50.300 --> 00:27:00.040
Because around a third of our customers are still very, very attached to their physical edition every week. Yeah. And totally understandably so, right?

161
00:27:00.060 --> 00:27:10.050
And actually in a world of kind of sort of digital overload and especially as the, the world of AI slop comes along, that pleasure of holding something in your hand and being able to sit back and enjoy the weekend as you described- Yeah...

162
00:27:10.050 --> 00:27:16.240
is gonna become more important, not less important. So we don't see the, the magazine as you'd like to call it, going away anytime soon.

163
00:27:16.580 --> 00:27:19.720
And we're gonna, we're gonna keep on, you know, making sure that we serve those customers.

164
00:27:19.760 --> 00:27:26.460
At the same time, we've got about a third of the base who kind of, you know, p- sometimes use the weekly edition, sometimes they're using it on a more daily basis.

165
00:27:27.000 --> 00:27:32.440
And then we have about a third of the base who are looking for a much more frequent experience from The Economist through the course of the week.

166
00:27:33.320 --> 00:27:39.699
And I would say we are still tuning our model to m- work out how we serve all three of those constituents, right?

167
00:27:39.760 --> 00:27:49.020
Because it's quite a different experience for serving up to the person who opens up their physical product in the post on a Saturday morning to somebody who fires up the app on a Tuesday afternoon.

168
00:27:49.060 --> 00:27:50.580
And what are they looking for from The Economist?

169
00:27:51.020 --> 00:28:16.240
And those people who are kind of coming in on a digital-only subscription and are digital native, they're younger in general, they're more diverse, and you know, what-- they're, they're time poor, you know, they're kind of used to-- they n- they're used to finding things quickly and moving on quickly and, and we need to create an experience which allows them to taste the quality of The Economist and allows them to enjoy the sort of perspective The Economist brings to these stories.

170
00:28:16.300 --> 00:28:21.070
Not breaking news, as you say, but, but a considered take on the stories that matter. Yeah.

171
00:28:21.080 --> 00:28:30.960
But in a way which is fast and is suited to what they're interested in and is gonna allow them to fit The Economist around their very, very busy schedule. So we're doing a really interesting piece of work at the moment.

172
00:28:31.080 --> 00:28:41.900
We launched a, a, an AI lab earlier this year, and we're just in the process of developing a prototype which is focused on that younger demographic, pure sort of digital-led or digital native demographic.

173
00:28:41.960 --> 00:28:57.780
And you know, for the first time we're looking at, okay, when you look at the, the physical product that is entirely editorially curated, and that's about creating a, a set of stories and, and reports and analyses, which is entirely curated by our editorial team and laid out by the through, by the editors on a Wednesday night.

174
00:28:58.320 --> 00:29:17.440
When you're moving to creating something which is trying to serve that, that sort of shorter, faster consumption pattern that, that, that younger demographic are looking for, you've got to start looking at a different balance between having something which is more personal, more suited to, based to, more tailored to that customer based on their previous usage habits, based on what amount of time they have.

175
00:29:17.500 --> 00:29:24.589
Do they have half an hour where they're walking the dog or do they have a twenty-minute commute on the way to work, having dropped the kids off and fitting around their schedule?

176
00:29:25.140 --> 00:29:29.240
That becomes a very different customer experience to the one that we've traditionally produced.

177
00:29:29.340 --> 00:29:44.030
So the brilliant thing about, you know, whilst AI creates all sorts of, you know, kind of interesting challenges for the publishing sector, it also allows us to start to make our journalism more flexible, more accessible through summarization, personalization, new formats, you know- Mm-hmm...

178
00:29:44.040 --> 00:29:55.200
an audio first experience potentially. We're looking at a whole bunch of different, you know, AI-powered features which create a very, very different way of enjoying- Mm. The Economist on a, on a daily basis. Yeah.

179
00:29:55.240 --> 00:30:06.120
And by the way, a-anyone who has any questions, please pop them into the chat and I'll, I'll get to them shortly. So on that, like talk to me about the AI lab and what you're trying to accomplish there.

180
00:30:06.160 --> 00:30:11.560
I think there's some low-hanging fruit when it comes to translation, for instance. There's- Sure...

181
00:30:11.620 --> 00:30:40.816
a ton of The Economist's, you know, can-- there's-- I have no idea how many like Mandarin speakers who would prefer, you know, to read in Mandarin than in, in, in English and, and there's obviously an opportunity I always think of as versioning, you know?Whether, whether I wanna have the, the, The Economist leaders in, in print, or whether I wanna have it on an app, or whether I, or whether I wanna have it read with a, a, a wonderful, like, you know, Oxford accent, like, you know.

182
00:30:40.916 --> 00:30:43.995
[laughs] It should be, it should be all there. Yeah.

183
00:30:44.376 --> 00:30:58.796
Yeah, so like we're doing a bunch of those things already, and AI is definitely our friend in terms of making our content more easily accessible to a, to, to a variety of different customer types, whether it's the language, whether it's they want it audio, whether they want summaries.

184
00:30:58.806 --> 00:31:06.676
So we're, we're doing all of those things already. We have, in The Economist Espresso app, we have English, we have French, we have German, Spanish, Mandarin.

185
00:31:06.756 --> 00:31:10.836
So you can consume that, all of our journalism in any of those languages at the touch of a button.

186
00:31:11.276 --> 00:31:20.356
We have AI summaries launched in our main app, we have text-to-speech, we have all of our weekly edition k- narrated by, by humans, by actors every single week.

187
00:31:20.496 --> 00:31:37.796
But that comes out on a Thursday, so kind of for anything that we publish ahead of that Thursday, you know, weekly, weekly release of the, of the main edition, we're using text-to-speech to, to bring our, our, our written stories into the audio format because that is becoming so popular with, with many of our customers.

188
00:31:37.836 --> 00:31:47.096
So they're the sort of, they're the basics really, and lots of other people are using similar AI-powered features. The AI lab is, is trying to be much more ambitious in its nature.

189
00:31:47.196 --> 00:31:57.166
So the first part of the process was a really fun part actually, which was thinking about what the world looks like in three years' time, and that's a bit of a fool's errand given how fast the world is moving, you know, to try and work out three years out.

190
00:31:57.236 --> 00:32:08.316
But we came, we met with a bunch of publishers in New York and startups on the West Coast and went to the Nordics where there's some really interesting things happening, and just painted a picture of, okay, where's, where's the AI, where's the LLM world headed?

191
00:32:08.476 --> 00:32:18.476
Where's the world of audio headed? Where's the world of multimodal output headed? What does that mean the consumers are gonna be getting used to and expecting to get from their, from their news publishers?

192
00:32:18.786 --> 00:32:25.346
What does it mean that our competitors are gonna be doing? So we kind of painted this picture of what the world looks like in three years' time. What... I'm sorry. Was it bleak, or what was it?

193
00:32:25.556 --> 00:32:30.116
Give, give us a preview of what The Economist- Well-... sees the world of media looking like in three years.

194
00:32:30.516 --> 00:32:38.636
It kind of depends whether you've got a, like, you know, a, a moderate or a more extreme view of how quickly these things happen, and I think the, we generally are in the more moderate camp.

195
00:32:38.696 --> 00:32:46.336
And I think that means that you're gonna have, you know, the majority of people using LLMs for a wide array of use cases.

196
00:32:46.396 --> 00:32:54.936
Most people are gonna be using agents to do a lot of things that we do, you know, via a browser today. So that means that, you know, you might have...

197
00:32:55.136 --> 00:33:03.116
And, and I, I don't think you reach a world where you've got one or two dominant LLMs. I mean, yeah, it depends on your, your sort of game theory point of view on how the market plays out over the next few years.

198
00:33:03.216 --> 00:33:11.366
But there's, there's gonna be... I, I don't think the market's gonna be captured by one dominant player who could then really dictate the terms of who... You know, they become a true gateway.

199
00:33:11.436 --> 00:33:21.416
I think you're gonna have enough competition in the market that you have three, four material players out there, but people are gonna have fewer apps- You mean the foundational models? Yeah. Yeah. And, and apps.

200
00:33:21.516 --> 00:33:29.726
Yeah, and, and end user apps as well. Yeah. And, you know, kind of those apps are gonna be doing a lot of things for you. So you're not gonna have nearly as many apps on your phone, right? Yeah.

201
00:33:29.726 --> 00:33:37.166
'Cause your, your LLM app is gonna be doing the weekly shopping for you, and booking your flights, and finding you the pair of trainers that you want. Yeah.

202
00:33:37.286 --> 00:33:40.096
And you're gonna do all of that through one single interface, right?

203
00:33:40.136 --> 00:33:50.586
And yeah, and, and so as a result, the number of apps that the average Joe is gonna have on their phone is gonna reduce significantly over the next three, in three years' time. And so the competition- Okay...

204
00:33:50.586 --> 00:33:59.566
to be one of those apps that people are still using directly becomes a lot fiercer. Okay. So you're... So basically it's, uh, that you... This is fascinating.

205
00:33:59.656 --> 00:34:06.556
So like basically there's going to be a bunch of different LLMs probably. Yeah. You know, there's not gonna be just a couple, right?

206
00:34:06.576 --> 00:34:16.256
But there's gonna be, it's gonna be more agentic, so people are gonna be, instead of us going to information, information is basically going to come to us, right? Yep. Yeah.

207
00:34:16.476 --> 00:34:23.636
And so the, directly downloading a publisher app will be like a Hunger Games kind of thing.

208
00:34:23.696 --> 00:34:32.716
You're not gonna have, I don't know, the average person might have like 60 apps on their phone, they use like 20, they'll just have a few, right? Like- Right. That's exactly right. That number will dwindle.

209
00:34:32.796 --> 00:34:34.376
So, uh, Hunger Games is a good analogy.

210
00:34:34.416 --> 00:34:49.676
Like it's, it's, it's definitely gonna be more competitive than it is today, and a lot of, a lot of those end user news publishers are gonna become agentic powered, and their business model's gonna have to change accordingly, and there may not be that much mo- that much, you know, money in that model to be totally frank.

211
00:34:50.356 --> 00:34:57.936
Yeah. Which is why you have to think very, very hard about what you have to do to be one of those apps that people still have on their phone and they, they use. Well, I think one of the thing you have to...

212
00:34:58.096 --> 00:35:09.166
is do you wanna try to be one of those apps? Yeah. Right? Because- For sure... there is, there is a- For sure. I think the, the answer for the majority of companies is this is not a fight we can compete in- Right...

213
00:35:09.246 --> 00:35:20.385
so we wanna supply the, the apps that are there, you know? Yep. Like whether that's Apple News is gonna get through. Uh, you know, there's lots of different aggregators, as we've seen. The aggregators always win.

214
00:35:21.136 --> 00:35:35.346
And if you control the interface, you control pretty much the commanding heights of the digital economy. And so I think that there's going to be some publishers who look at that and say, "We'll be wholesalers.

215
00:35:35.416 --> 00:35:40.816
We're gonna wholesale our content to a bunch of people who control the interface." Yeah, for sure.

216
00:35:40.996 --> 00:35:54.836
And, and it's really interesting seeing even, you know, some of the big e-commerce companies already, already starting to do deals with the ChatGPTs of this world and, and realizing that a big part of their business is gonna be, is gonna be conducted through that LLM interface.

217
00:35:55.196 --> 00:35:56.176
And, and then- Okay.

218
00:35:56.356 --> 00:36:07.836
Like, so you're still gonna, you're still gonna have a print product in three years that is, is niche and expensive, and people wanna like still have it, like in first class on, on, on flights and next to them.

219
00:36:08.576 --> 00:36:18.636
We're planning to. And, and look, we've got a, we've got a very loyal print base, customer base. You know, we've had them stay healthy for many years, and we wanna keep on serving them for that time. Yeah.

220
00:36:18.666 --> 00:36:20.276
And we, we don't, we don't see that going away.

221
00:36:20.356 --> 00:36:32.383
I think we're backing ourselves, I mean, we would do, but this is where it comes to the sort of the three main things that we're doing to try and-Ensure that we have a seat at the table or an app on the phone in three years' time.

222
00:36:32.944 --> 00:36:51.704
And the first is, as I said, you know, kind of what Insider is the beginning of, which is doubling down on, on that human-crafted, artisanal journalistic endeavor and, and making sure that, you know, the, the mix of our text output versus audio output versus video output is already changing and will continue to change over the next few years.

223
00:36:52.214 --> 00:36:57.444
Yes. So we create something which is really differentiated, which you can't get in an AI news aggregator.

224
00:36:58.004 --> 00:37:08.904
And by the way, we're not doing deals with AI aggregators, so we've, we've passed on, on all opportunities that have come our way so far because we don't want to create the habit that customers think they can find The Economist content on ChatGPT.

225
00:37:09.044 --> 00:37:19.584
We want to, we want to maintain that direct relationship. Mm. So that's the first thing that we're doing. The s- the second thing we're doing is AI Lab, creating what we believe is gonna be, you know...

226
00:37:19.604 --> 00:37:26.644
Because people have become more and more used to multimodal output, like if they want it in video, they will have it in video, if they want it in audio, they have it in audio.

227
00:37:26.684 --> 00:37:34.884
We, we wanna, we wanna create a very different experience from what the app is today. If you open The Economist app today, it's kind of the printed product within an app interface.

228
00:37:34.924 --> 00:37:39.104
It's the same content, it's the same articles, it's broadly speaking the same experience.

229
00:37:39.694 --> 00:38:00.164
That needs to change profoundly to, as I said, hold, bring in and hold onto that younger demographic, the next generation of customers for The Economist, and that's where AI is our friend because we think we can create very, very personal interfaces and very personal experiences where you are being guided, say by a, by a, by a voice-led host through The Economist experience.

230
00:38:00.264 --> 00:38:09.324
You can very easily shape that to the amount of time you have available to the sort of the themes or the stories that you're most interested in. You start to create a very, very different experience.

231
00:38:09.484 --> 00:38:15.164
If you, if you think the experience today is at the weekend I sit down, or historically the experience would be like sit down with my...

232
00:38:15.204 --> 00:38:22.944
You sit down, as you said, Brian, with your, with your print- printed magazine, and you look at the pa- the table of contents, and you say, "Okay, I like the sound of that, that, and that."

233
00:38:23.024 --> 00:38:33.244
You know, and you work your way through five, 10 different stories. You give yourself an hour of brain food, and that's like a really satisfying, complete experience. Oh, I go start to finish. I go, I, I go wire to wire.

234
00:38:33.254 --> 00:38:40.853
I like it. I like it. I didn't wanna make any assumptions, but- [laughs]... that puts, that definitely puts you in the elite, in the elite- I slow down a little bit in the back when it gets to the- [laughs] I know...

235
00:38:40.894 --> 00:38:48.484
financial tables, but- Okay, fair enough. I think that's reasonable if you're starting at the beginning. What is the equivalent of that, that 20-minute experience?

236
00:38:48.564 --> 00:38:54.264
If I have 20 minutes on my commute, how do we win that person's attention for that time?

237
00:38:54.384 --> 00:39:02.204
And actually, I think The Economist does, does, does three things very well in that longer form version, which I think we can do in a shorter form version as well.

238
00:39:02.304 --> 00:39:06.984
It tells you what to think on the, on the stories that you care about.

239
00:39:07.684 --> 00:39:15.284
It actually tells you about the stories you didn't know were important, so you, you end up reading about something which is really important that wasn't on your radar.

240
00:39:15.374 --> 00:39:26.994
And the third thing is it, it, it brings you some sort of quirky, amusing, more humorous stories of, of, you know, kind of slow cooking in, in Bulgaria or, you know, the trend for- [laughs]...

241
00:39:27.004 --> 00:39:36.474
you know, a certain toy type in China. It just brings you that, that quirky story that you, you know, kind of- Yeah... get a bit of a reward, bit, a bit of a payoff almost for your, for your Economist consumption.

242
00:39:36.624 --> 00:39:52.424
And so what is the, what is the, the digital daily version of that which fits into a might be five minutes, might be 25 minutes, but is like completely tailored to that end user's needs in a way which at the moment we, we don't, we don't tailor to the end user's needs.

243
00:39:52.484 --> 00:40:02.514
So that's, that's what AI Lab is all about. Um- Okay, so that is gonna come out with like a new version of like the app or like the experience of The Economist? Is, is that to...

244
00:40:02.674 --> 00:40:08.384
Explain like what, what, what we're gonna see out of that. Yeah, so it'll be, it'll be a very different user interface.

245
00:40:08.664 --> 00:40:25.264
It's likely to be, you know, uh, audio's gonna be a really important part of the experience, both in terms of how you control the app and how you decide what you want, and then how you consume, because I think we, our content is so well suited to, you know, being on the move or being on a commute or walking the dog, whatever it might be.

246
00:40:25.293 --> 00:40:30.564
Like we- Yeah... we, we think that our content is, is, can fit around people's lives much better through this medium.

247
00:40:31.064 --> 00:40:36.844
And yeah, so, you know, th- through, through those, through being multimodal and through being tailored based on- Mm...

248
00:40:36.874 --> 00:40:44.504
people's habitual usage patterns, you know, your experience of The Economist on a Tuesday will be really quite different from my experience. Okay.

249
00:40:44.564 --> 00:40:53.404
We had a question from Sterling Proffer who had, had, had talked about like basically what I said about the, how the voice of The Economist is such a hallmark of the brand, right?

250
00:40:54.004 --> 00:41:14.464
But then he also talked about how, you know, a lot of the attention is shifting to individual voices, particularly on social media, and he referenced Kaila Scanlon, who's a creator who I think is, is tremendous because, you know, I think a lot of times creators are, are in fluffy areas and, and Kaila is about economics, and she's very popular, particularly among younger people.

251
00:41:14.544 --> 00:41:18.324
And she does work with, with, with Bloomberg and, and others.

252
00:41:18.644 --> 00:41:37.064
How do you end up thinking about both creating these, you know, elevating these, these voices from within The Economist that make like the core product, but also this, you know, whether there's a role for The Economist to be a curator of these more, I wanna say almost like digitally native creators?

253
00:41:37.564 --> 00:41:46.454
Obviously everyone operates, you know, in the digital environment, but there are certain like creators who are just, I don't know, they were just born for it. They were made for this [laughs].

254
00:41:47.164 --> 00:41:53.564
They're not trying to retrofit for being good at, at written journalism. Look, I have a lot of time and respect for those people.

255
00:41:53.604 --> 00:42:01.584
We've, we've talked about whether we could be a kind of curator for some of those third parties, but that's not currently in our plans, just to be totally transparent. We've, we- Yeah...

256
00:42:01.604 --> 00:42:11.844
we think we've got enough mileage to keep on expanding what The Economist produces and, you know, keep on ensuring that that tone of voice, you know, infuses everything that we, everything that we make.

257
00:42:11.904 --> 00:42:14.034
And, and that people come to us...

258
00:42:14.144 --> 00:42:24.024
I guess the reason we don't wanna do it is because people come to us because they know that they're gonna get a very, very, very consistent brand experience, to your point around that tonality- Yeah...

259
00:42:24.034 --> 00:42:38.288
and the, and, and, and that goes back to why we haven't scaled the newsroom further, why we maintain the, the, the production model that we still have, which is this sort of, you know, handcrafted model because-It's like walking into an Hermes shop.

260
00:42:38.348 --> 00:42:40.128
You know exactly what that experience is gonna be.

261
00:42:40.188 --> 00:42:50.208
You might not, you know, be able to afford it on that particular day of the week, but you know what you're gonna get, and, and it's always gonna be of the very, very highest quality, and it's gonna be very, very, you know, kind of distinctive.

262
00:42:50.288 --> 00:42:56.508
So that's what we-- that's how we think about The Economist experience. How do you think about the talent question, though, right?

263
00:42:56.588 --> 00:43:06.008
Because, you know, I always thought, like, what the, the biggest strength of The Economist is that, like, you-- it almost reads as if it's written by one person, right?

264
00:43:06.018 --> 00:43:17.868
And it's almost like it, it's, it, it, it reads that way, you know. And that breaks down when you get into multimodal. When you get into voice, there's obviously differences. Video, it's gonna be different. Yeah.

265
00:43:17.908 --> 00:43:27.068
And I wonder about, like, carrying that through and also the opportunity but also risk of, like, developing talent.

266
00:43:27.408 --> 00:43:45.868
You know, this is something that comes up with, with publishers all the time when we have our breakfast and dinner forums about how they wanna develop, like, sort of in-house talent, but there is, like, some sort of, like, feeling like, well, I don't wanna build, like, a franchise around a person who then gets Sub Stack curious.

267
00:43:46.468 --> 00:43:47.208
Right. Right.

268
00:43:47.568 --> 00:43:59.748
It's, it's a good question, and I, I've unlimited admiration for how Zanny manages her talent, you know, because she does an extremely good job of, of not just recruiting but then retaining our best people for a long time.

269
00:43:59.778 --> 00:44:09.668
And, and it is a striking feature of our newsroom that many of our people have been there for twenty, thirty plus years and, and have really been there from the ground up.

270
00:44:09.708 --> 00:44:14.088
They might have gone and done a, a short stint at the FT, but they've, they've nearly always come back.

271
00:44:14.248 --> 00:44:23.008
So, you know, there's, there's something quite compelling about it, and I spend, you know, lucky to spend a lot of time on the, you know, the, the, the, the, on the floor above us in our, in our headquarters.

272
00:44:23.088 --> 00:44:26.068
And I spend a lot of time on that floor and, you know, in the editorial meetings.

273
00:44:26.148 --> 00:44:37.348
And there are not many places that allow you to have the quality of debates and write on the, on the quality, the, the sort-- I guess the, the variety of stories that we cover.

274
00:44:37.448 --> 00:44:44.648
You know, we don't just kind of, kind of cover the main news. We do cover the stories that you didn't know that you cared about. We do cover those quirkier numbers as well.

275
00:44:45.128 --> 00:44:57.488
And so I think there's this combination of incredible intellectual rigor with a freedom to follow your nose and to, you know, write about the things that interest you if you've got a strong enough or an interesting enough viewpoint.

276
00:44:57.588 --> 00:45:08.888
And I think that's a very powerful combination. And so yeah, even before we introduced podcasts, before we launched Insider just a few weeks ago, our retention rate of that top talent was very, very good.

277
00:45:08.948 --> 00:45:17.588
Now, you raise a pretty interesting question. As we start to sort of bring more personalities onto the screen, they inevitably have a different voice, right?

278
00:45:17.728 --> 00:45:23.288
So Shashank Joshi, our defense editor, is presenting insights inside defense.

279
00:45:23.328 --> 00:45:33.448
But, you know, if you take Inside Tech, the first episode of which aired last night, Tom Standage, our brilliant deputy editor and, and, and sort of longtime tech writer, is a completely different personality.

280
00:45:33.468 --> 00:45:38.308
And so you start to get some variances in that tonality. Yeah. But they've all been there so long.

281
00:45:38.368 --> 00:45:46.728
The, the, the, the, the attention to detail and the, the rigor that goes into their thinking, their arguments, they might communicate differently.

282
00:45:46.748 --> 00:45:56.528
They might have different senses of humor, but there's that consistency and that rigor and that, and that sort of fact-based journalism that they, they're producing. So final topic is around your events business.

283
00:45:56.608 --> 00:46:06.558
Something that always comes up these days with publishers are events. And, and The Economist has, has put on a, a tremend-- it puts on a tremendous amount of events. I always see- Yeah...

284
00:46:06.628 --> 00:46:20.328
the ads for Sustainability Week and various other niche events a lot of times. But you see, we see new entrants like Semaphore that are positioning themselves as w-- almost more events company than, than publisher.

285
00:46:20.388 --> 00:46:32.638
I mean, it's, it's a model that I know well from B2B. It's like most B2B publishers are events businesses with publishing on the front end. How do you guys see your events business? It's not like, you know... I know,

286
00:46:33.968 --> 00:46:41.168
I know that, like, I don't know how you actually grew, but The Economist Impact, which, uh, houses it, is not like- Yeah... a growth engine for, for the business.

287
00:46:41.348 --> 00:46:50.208
And it's surprising to me in some ways because so many business publishers in particular, you know, they just wanna events, events, events.

288
00:46:50.528 --> 00:46:59.348
And that's usually to me, if they haven't been doing events for a while and all of a sudden they, like, discovered events, that means that their, their core businesses are doing really poorly.

289
00:47:00.168 --> 00:47:08.648
So how do you end up thinking about events? 'Cause again, tremendous brand, a, a great area, a tr- a, a lot of opportunity.

290
00:47:09.198 --> 00:47:17.848
Events, however, have, have their nuances that [chuckles] you know, they're-- it's a pain once you get into the events business. Yeah, look, I think it's a great question.

291
00:47:18.028 --> 00:47:22.748
An event-- just to be clear, events have been l- is a, is a... We've got a nice events business which have been growing- Yeah...

292
00:47:22.828 --> 00:47:35.088
healthy the last few years, so it's definitely an important part of our, our business, so we're, you know, three hundred and fifty million pound, three hundred and seventy million pound business, and a hundred million pounds of that is our impact business, and events is a big chunk of that.

293
00:47:35.148 --> 00:47:37.788
So it's a, it's a good and important part of our business.

294
00:47:38.208 --> 00:47:48.148
I think, I think what Semaphore are doing that is really interesting is they're sort of placing events on a par with their written output in terms of their journalistic endeavor.

295
00:47:48.308 --> 00:47:56.188
So they see events as a core channel for their editorial output, and they've started in that position.

296
00:47:56.268 --> 00:48:09.748
Now, th- like many, many sort of businesses that have been around for a longer time, you know, publishing businesses, The Economist core business is, is our written product historically and increasingly our, our audio and video, and then events is a secondary business.

297
00:48:09.988 --> 00:48:24.348
And, and so I think we start from a different position, and actually I've fi- I've been, been really impressed by what Semaphore achieve, but it's also sort of starting to cause us to think a bit differently about events, because they are actually a really powerful way to disseminate your journalism.

298
00:48:24.448 --> 00:48:34.208
And I think historically, because we have this smaller newsroom and we've deliberately not expanded that newsroom aggressively, it's meant that there's a natural resource constraints on how much we can put into events.

299
00:48:34.268 --> 00:48:54.076
Now, as events and live experiences become ever more important, and I do think, you know, one of the things that when we're doing our future gazing for the AI Lab, the importance of live experiences continues to grow, and so we see that as an area that we want toPay close attention to and, and see more as an opportunity to also promote our, and, and practice our journalism, right?

300
00:48:54.096 --> 00:49:01.566
In a way that historically has probably been seen as a secondary outlet. How does it become a more, more interesting, more important outlet for our journalism? Right.

301
00:49:01.596 --> 00:49:09.086
But your events business right now are typically s- uh, you don't have, like, a massive flagship event. There's no- We don't... like- No...

302
00:49:09.136 --> 00:49:21.266
Economist festival where I can go and, I don't know, meet Bartlebee or something. Not right now, no. [laughs] But, like, so most of the events you're doing are... I mean, they're fairly niche. You know what I mean? Yeah.

303
00:49:21.276 --> 00:49:29.876
They're in, like, you know, capital markets and, and things of that nature. I assume that they're either single sponsor or a couple of sponsor. They're not, like...

304
00:49:29.926 --> 00:49:46.176
So I guess that's the part of e- events that I think about, that a lot of these businesses have almost, like, a B2B sort of events business that is, like, not totally integrated, I feel like, all the times with the journalistic product.

305
00:49:47.036 --> 00:49:52.276
Tell me if I'm wrong [laughs] about the opportunity as the brand to- Yeah...

306
00:49:52.296 --> 00:50:02.716
you know, 'cause, like, I always go back, and I understand what, like, you know, Justin and the team there are doing 'cause they look at, like, Davos, this massive event, right? That there's this, like, massive business.

307
00:50:03.056 --> 00:50:11.496
And it's just like- Yeah... you end up thinking. It's like when I was at, like, Adweek, I'm like, "Why didn't Adweek create Can?" Like, oh, like, that makes sense. Right. Like- Yeah, I think...

308
00:50:11.516 --> 00:50:21.876
Look, Justin, who, who started out at The Economist as it happens, I think is, has been really smart in, in, in how they focus that business on sort of creating a Davos equivalent, right?

309
00:50:22.256 --> 00:50:26.856
Which is B2B, by the way, just to be clear. That's B2B rather than B2C. Yeah, yeah. Um- Yeah.

310
00:50:27.096 --> 00:50:38.426
But it, but it's editorially led, and I think along with many other news publishers that have been around for a while, our b- our business has been B2B, but... and it's been, you know, kind of...

311
00:50:38.766 --> 00:50:45.506
We, you know, we obviously take great care in the quality of our events, but it's a sponsorship model, and that's how we've built our events business. Yeah, that's what I mean by B2B. Yeah.

312
00:50:45.506 --> 00:50:57.516
B2B events to me are sponsor-driven, right? Right. And when you get more into, like, the Davo, you're, you're gonna- you're in a different category, I feel like. Yeah. Yeah, I think so.

313
00:50:57.566 --> 00:51:05.096
Although I, I, I don't know, I don't know for sure, but I would've thought that- Yeah... Semafore's events are mainly sponsor. No, no, no, they're sponsor. They are. That's true. Yeah.

314
00:51:05.506 --> 00:51:15.696
But, but I just think what they've done, which is smart, is they've thought about events as a great platform for their journalism, and I think that's where there's an opportunity for us to think differently as well.

315
00:51:15.756 --> 00:51:21.996
Yeah. Okay. Awesome. Well, let us leave us there. We're after, like, six minutes of the hour.

316
00:51:22.056 --> 00:51:37.776
Sort of just to, like, wrap up, when you're thinking about this, you know, three year, three years out, and I think all publishers, I love that you're, you're actually thinking this, 'cause I always ask, I always ask media companies executives, I'm like, "What does your business look like in three years?"

317
00:51:38.036 --> 00:51:47.216
And I get a lot of misdirection and [laughs] stuff. Yeah. Like, people are like, "Ah, I don't wanna talk about that." I'm like, "That's not a good sign." And I understand it.

318
00:51:47.516 --> 00:51:52.656
But, like, what do you think of when you, you went through that exercise, what do you think are...

319
00:51:52.676 --> 00:52:04.556
'Cause I like to think about the sort of Jeff Bezos thing of, like, focus on the things that won't change versus what is gonna change, 'cause you're just kinda, like, guessing with things that are gonna change, particularly in a time like this.

320
00:52:04.576 --> 00:52:10.036
But what do you... When you went through that exercise, what do you think of the things that aren't gonna change for a brand like The Economist?

321
00:52:10.796 --> 00:52:16.916
Well, look, we, we go through profound, you know, global upheaval, right, in geopolitics and economics and technology.

322
00:52:17.036 --> 00:52:26.836
So the whole world is changing around us in, in myriad ways and, you know, the exercise we ran showed that the, the way consumers are gonna live their lives in three years' time is gonna be very different.

323
00:52:26.856 --> 00:52:37.536
But the thing that I think remains more valuable than ever is what The Economist offers, and that is a independent, fact-based, fearless point of view on, on the world's stories.

324
00:52:37.736 --> 00:53:01.836
And, you know, in a, in a world of AI-generated news and, you know, the level of misinformation, disinformation that will only continue to grow, we do believe that that human-created and crafted, fact-based, independent, rigorous perspective that we create, you know, that, that kind of has a, a, an impact and an expertise well beyond the scale of our customer base, that's what's gonna remain unchanging.

325
00:53:01.876 --> 00:53:11.436
And I think so much of what we do when I think about the three-year plan and the strategy, I start with what are the things about The Economist that are most precious that we need to build on, we need to preserve?

326
00:53:11.906 --> 00:53:22.056
And that is above all our editorial independence and our editorial quality. And everything we do really is in service to those things. So they- that has to remain unchanging.

327
00:53:22.136 --> 00:53:30.876
The format in which we serve it up, the experience which we create for our customers to make the most of that journalism will change significantly in the next three years.

328
00:53:31.456 --> 00:53:43.296
But the quality of that output and the, and the, the level of rigor and attention to detail in that output and the scale that we operate at to make sure that the quality is where it needs to be is not gonna change fundamentally at all.

329
00:53:43.326 --> 00:53:50.716
In fact, it is gonna stay, it's gonna stay just the same. Okay. And do you have, like, a big subscriber number for those three years, or no?

330
00:53:51.376 --> 00:53:58.196
We're a privately held company, Brian, so, you know, I know the New York Times- Okay... like to flash their numbers around on their quarterly earnings, but we keep those things to ourselves, I'm afraid.

331
00:53:58.306 --> 00:54:13.316
[laughs] Fair enough. All right, Luke. Thank you very much, and thank you all for joining us. Thank you, Brian. Appreciate it. It's been a pleasure. Work it out. Take care. Bye. [outro music]