3 ms·

What is the difference between Stratfor and the WSJ or Economist? They all are relatively expensive publications that provide information only to subscribers an

by steve19 15y ago

What is the difference between Stratfor and the WSJ or Economist? They all are relatively expensive publications that provide information only to subscribers and not the general public. The author seems to be upset that Stratfor was making a lot of money. Startfor is not the only private intelligence group. IHS Inc. [0] owns Jane's Information Group (defense/strategic intelligence) [1] and iSuppli (industrial intelligence). In my opinion Jane's publications and subscriptions are way overpriced. The book Jane's All the World's Aircraft (2012) costs well over $1300 on Amazon [2]. I doubt there is anything in there that you can't find on Wikipedia (or, if not, a quick Google search). That does not stop every mil/intel office worldwide buying a copy of the latest edition each year. Their customers seem to like having all the latest information in a big heavy book. There is no point in hating on Jane's for providing a product that is demanded by the public. So Stratfor does marketing to enhance their image and increase their subscriber base, what businesses don't? I am not interested in subscribing to Stratfor, but I don't hate on them for meeting consumer demand. [0] http://www.ihs.com/ http://www.ihs.com/ [1] http://www.janes.com/products/janes/index.aspx http://www.janes.com/products/janes/index.aspx [2] http://www.amazon.com/Janes-All-Worlds-Aircraft-2011-2012/dp/0710629559/ http://www.amazon.com/Janes-All-Worlds-Aircraft-2011-2012/dp... Edit: Added Links. Clarified thought.

ghshephard 15y ago
The difference is what each makes themselves out to be. I have subscriptions to both the WSJ and Economist - neither is particularly expensive. And the WSJ/Economist are precisely what they make themselves out to be - a business newspaper (thought I haven't touched the actual paper in 3+ years), and a weekly magazine on international affairs (ditto with no physical magazine touched in several years). Janes, WSJ, and the Economist all do original sourcing/reporting. Regarding Janes - $1300 for the good research report on Aviation Assets is roundoff error for the people who need it (typically people in the Airline Industry who need market research on airplanes - $1300 is eminently reasonable for a good market research report on a vertical sector) for people who don't "need it" (Almost all of us) We can get it from Wikipedia/Google searches - and much of that data you find will be sourced back to Jane's. Stratfor makes themselves out to be some amazingly elite intelligence reporting organization, when, in fact, they offer little more than what you would get from a simply reading the WSJ/Economist + a bit of googling. This would be fine if they admitted they were an aggregator with a small amount of local reporting - but when you charge $40K for a subscription, you expect to get something somewhat special. That, is why people consider Stratfor to be a joke.
- JumpCrisscross 15y ago
  when you charge $40k for a subscription Whoah...what? If you're just receiving their memos, i.e. it's a one-way push relationship, you're paying a few hundred dollars a year at worst. You start paying more when you ask them to * commission* you research. This is akin to you going to The Economist and saying 'write me a briefing or special report on Mongolia with a special emphasis on the PRC's influence'. It may turn out to be solely aggregated from open sources, but you're generally not paying for the raw intelligence - you're paying for analysis. The Atlantic is basically asserting that STRATFOR is not Kroll or IGI, e.g. 'deploy assets in China and map out this individual's social and financial network, as well as a list of his beneficial ownerships and Party ties'. But it's not an Economist either. It's far more speculative, internalising the constant uncertainty and source verification involved in actual intelligence operations. I agree with The Atlantic when they say that STRATFOR is being plumped up by Wikileaks, and that comparing it to its image as a "shadow CIA" paints it in a bad light. But if you look at them as a firm of intelligence analysts it's no longer quite so insidious...or incompetent. To further challenge the equating of publicly sourcing data with incompetence, take the asset management industry. This industry ostensibly bases its decisions on public information. But we pay them. Not because they're sleuthing around Chinese coal plants (some are), but because their analysis adds intrinsic value.
  - jonnathanson 15y ago
    This. People -- and I would include both Wikileaks and The Atlantic here -- seem to be conflating or confusing the distinct displines of intelligence collection and intelligence analysis. Stratfor's strong suit is analysis: putting pieces together and making sense of them. Whether or not it does a good job at analysis is up for debate, but to my understanding, analysis has always been its bread and butter. Given that there are very few organizations in the world today doing cogent analysis based on accurate intel, it's not surprising that Stratfor has found a market for its wares. (To wit: even government agencies are having an increasingly hard time finding competent analysts, as the top talent at major universities typically goes to Wall Street instead). If Stratfor is actually doing any intelligence collection -- or, more probably, puffing up its own reputation as an intelligence collection agency -- it's primarily doing so to lend credibility to its analysis. Stratfor's brand benefits from all the "private CIA" blather, if up to a point.
fpp 15y ago
This article - besides what was already rightly said that it lacks substance and is full of lame comparisons - is downplaying Stratfor's role and influence on many decision makers in governments and industry. This seems to be in line with Stratfor's own defense strategy against the Wikileak email publications - make yourself small, discredit your opponent (next step / previously happened already by others), downplay the importance of the information revealed and doubt the accuracy / genuineness of the material - claim that it might have been altered (what nobody but insiders can proof right or wrong). In general reduce exposure and get it out of the spotlight asap (see Stratfor's press release at: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/stratfor-statement-on-wikileaks-140524033.html http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/stratfor-statement-o... ) You can say what you want about "The Atlantic" - but the quality of their journalistic work has always been kept to an high standard at least in previous years. I would be (very) surprised if they don't have a subscription/copy of Stratfor's information services themselves given their interest and coverage of geo-political topics. If "Stratfor is a joke" so why have they so happily quoted from their analysis material in the past?
- tptacek 15y ago
  While Andrew Sullivan was writing his blog under The Atlantic's masthead, he regularly quoted Stratfor. Andrew Sullivan is a tool, was a tool long before he wrote for The Atlantic, and no longer writes for the Atlantic. Apart from Andrew Sullivan's blog, I found exactly one other instance of Stratfor on The Atlantic (except articles either talking about Stratfor being hacked or articles talking about Stratfor being a joke): in James Fallows' blog, once. My conclusion is that The Atlantic does not happily quote from Stratfor's "analysis material".
  - ajays 15y ago
    A quick Google search confirms your claim, at least for his new blog on The Daily Beast: https://www.google.com/search?q=stratfor+site:andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com https://www.google.com/search?q=stratfor+site:andrewsullivan...
  - fpp 15y ago
    Very informative - I do recall to have seen quite some reference to Stratfor on the Atlantic, sometimes also just mirroring their opinions on some subjects without mentioning them, but can't recall if those where all from one person. Nevertheless what checking on Google confirms once more how mediocre the results there have become, as Google seemingly does not differentiate between content, asides or widgets. Hence you get dozens / hundreds of "Stratfor joke" results for pages on the Atlantic that have nothing to do with it. Bug or feature - you decide ;-)
mr_eel 15y ago
"I am not interested in subscribing to Stratfor, but I don't hate on them for meeting consumer demand." This can be used to justify anything. Just because the public demand it, doesn't mean it's ethical for a company to provide it.
- omonra 15y ago
  I think the onus is to provide an argument why something is unethical.

by steve19 15y ago

ghshephard 15y ago

The difference is what each makes themselves out to be. I have subscriptions to both the WSJ and Economist - neither is particularly expensive. And the WSJ/Economist are precisely what they make themselves out to be - a business newspaper (thought I haven't touched the actual paper in 3+ years), and a weekly magazine on international affairs (ditto with no physical magazine touched in several years). Janes, WSJ, and the Economist all do original sourcing/reporting. Regarding Janes - $1300 for the good research report on Aviation Assets is roundoff error for the people who need it (typically people in the Airline Industry who need market research on airplanes - $1300 is eminently reasonable for a good market research report on a vertical sector) for people who don't "need it" (Almost all of us) We can get it from Wikipedia/Google searches - and much of that data you find will be sourced back to Jane's. Stratfor makes themselves out to be some amazingly elite intelligence reporting organization, when, in fact, they offer little more than what you would get from a simply reading the WSJ/Economist + a bit of googling. This would be fine if they admitted they were an aggregator with a small amount of local reporting - but when you charge $40K for a subscription, you expect to get something somewhat special. That, is why people consider Stratfor to be a joke.

JumpCrisscross 15y ago
when you charge $40k for a subscription Whoah...what? If you're just receiving their memos, i.e. it's a one-way push relationship, you're paying a few hundred dollars a year at worst. You start paying more when you ask them to * commission* you research. This is akin to you going to The Economist and saying 'write me a briefing or special report on Mongolia with a special emphasis on the PRC's influence'. It may turn out to be solely aggregated from open sources, but you're generally not paying for the raw intelligence - you're paying for analysis. The Atlantic is basically asserting that STRATFOR is not Kroll or IGI, e.g. 'deploy assets in China and map out this individual's social and financial network, as well as a list of his beneficial ownerships and Party ties'. But it's not an Economist either. It's far more speculative, internalising the constant uncertainty and source verification involved in actual intelligence operations. I agree with The Atlantic when they say that STRATFOR is being plumped up by Wikileaks, and that comparing it to its image as a "shadow CIA" paints it in a bad light. But if you look at them as a firm of intelligence analysts it's no longer quite so insidious...or incompetent. To further challenge the equating of publicly sourcing data with incompetence, take the asset management industry. This industry ostensibly bases its decisions on public information. But we pay them. Not because they're sleuthing around Chinese coal plants (some are), but because their analysis adds intrinsic value.
- jonnathanson 15y ago
  This. People -- and I would include both Wikileaks and The Atlantic here -- seem to be conflating or confusing the distinct displines of intelligence collection and intelligence analysis. Stratfor's strong suit is analysis: putting pieces together and making sense of them. Whether or not it does a good job at analysis is up for debate, but to my understanding, analysis has always been its bread and butter. Given that there are very few organizations in the world today doing cogent analysis based on accurate intel, it's not surprising that Stratfor has found a market for its wares. (To wit: even government agencies are having an increasingly hard time finding competent analysts, as the top talent at major universities typically goes to Wall Street instead). If Stratfor is actually doing any intelligence collection -- or, more probably, puffing up its own reputation as an intelligence collection agency -- it's primarily doing so to lend credibility to its analysis. Stratfor's brand benefits from all the "private CIA" blather, if up to a point.

fpp 15y ago

This article - besides what was already rightly said that it lacks substance and is full of lame comparisons - is downplaying Stratfor's role and influence on many decision makers in governments and industry. This seems to be in line with Stratfor's own defense strategy against the Wikileak email publications - make yourself small, discredit your opponent (next step / previously happened already by others), downplay the importance of the information revealed and doubt the accuracy / genuineness of the material - claim that it might have been altered (what nobody but insiders can proof right or wrong). In general reduce exposure and get it out of the spotlight asap (see Stratfor's press release at: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/stratfor-statement-on-wikileaks-140524033.html http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/stratfor-statement-o... ) You can say what you want about "The Atlantic" - but the quality of their journalistic work has always been kept to an high standard at least in previous years. I would be (very) surprised if they don't have a subscription/copy of Stratfor's information services themselves given their interest and coverage of geo-political topics. If "Stratfor is a joke" so why have they so happily quoted from their analysis material in the past?

tptacek 15y ago
While Andrew Sullivan was writing his blog under The Atlantic's masthead, he regularly quoted Stratfor. Andrew Sullivan is a tool, was a tool long before he wrote for The Atlantic, and no longer writes for the Atlantic. Apart from Andrew Sullivan's blog, I found exactly one other instance of Stratfor on The Atlantic (except articles either talking about Stratfor being hacked or articles talking about Stratfor being a joke): in James Fallows' blog, once. My conclusion is that The Atlantic does not happily quote from Stratfor's "analysis material".
- ajays 15y ago
  A quick Google search confirms your claim, at least for his new blog on The Daily Beast: https://www.google.com/search?q=stratfor+site:andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com https://www.google.com/search?q=stratfor+site:andrewsullivan...
- fpp 15y ago
  Very informative - I do recall to have seen quite some reference to Stratfor on the Atlantic, sometimes also just mirroring their opinions on some subjects without mentioning them, but can't recall if those where all from one person. Nevertheless what checking on Google confirms once more how mediocre the results there have become, as Google seemingly does not differentiate between content, asides or widgets. Hence you get dozens / hundreds of "Stratfor joke" results for pages on the Atlantic that have nothing to do with it. Bug or feature - you decide ;-)

mr_eel 15y ago

"I am not interested in subscribing to Stratfor, but I don't hate on them for meeting consumer demand." This can be used to justify anything. Just because the public demand it, doesn't mean it's ethical for a company to provide it.

omonra 15y ago
I think the onus is to provide an argument why something is unethical.