3 ms·

I'm not so sure... given the (apparent) network effects, and the fact that (I assume) Bloomberg users aren't going to be too price sensitive, you're unlikely to

by mbreese 13y ago

I'm not so sure... given the (apparent) network effects, and the fact that (I assume) Bloomberg users aren't going to be too price sensitive, you're unlikely to make a big dent their user-base anytime soon. What you are likely to do though is bring in new users who were price sensitive or who couldn't justify $20,000 for their particular use-case. For those who wouldn't spend $20,000, $2000 is a lot easier to swallow. So instead of taking Bloomberg's market, you'd be more likely to create a second tier of service.

amcnett 13y ago
I agree. Good tools could enable a second/separate tier of professionals to create a disruptive presence in the areas dominated by Bloomberg users. It would be simple to expect that Bloomberg would react accordingly.
greenyoda 13y ago
For a bond trader who does billions of dollars in trade per year, $20K/year doesn't even show up in the roundoff errors. Maybe a $2K/year service could find its way into the world of people who do day trading from their homes. On the other hand, those people are probably already using a lot of the information that's available free on the internet or from their brokerages, so it could be an uphill battle convincing them to shell out $2K for proprietary financial data.
notahacker 13y ago
The problem with the second tier is it might well be actually a smaller addressable market than the top tier; second best isn't really an option for finance professionals. The other problem is that a $2k per annum fee probably doesn't cover content licensing fees for a true Bloomberg competitor, never mind the (high) cost of sales or development costs. Nevertheless, there's no shortage of niche financial software/data products in the $2k per head range, but there's a reason they're not growing big enough to threaten Bloomberg.

3 ms·

I'm not so sure... given the (apparent) network effects, and the fact that (I assume) Bloomberg users aren't going to be too price sensitive, you're unlikely to

by mbreese 13y ago

amcnett 13y ago
I agree. Good tools could enable a second/separate tier of professionals to create a disruptive presence in the areas dominated by Bloomberg users. It would be simple to expect that Bloomberg would react accordingly.
greenyoda 13y ago
For a bond trader who does billions of dollars in trade per year, $20K/year doesn't even show up in the roundoff errors. Maybe a $2K/year service could find its way into the world of people who do day trading from their homes. On the other hand, those people are probably already using a lot of the information that's available free on the internet or from their brokerages, so it could be an uphill battle convincing them to shell out $2K for proprietary financial data.
notahacker 13y ago
The problem with the second tier is it might well be actually a smaller addressable market than the top tier; second best isn't really an option for finance professionals. The other problem is that a $2k per annum fee probably doesn't cover content licensing fees for a true Bloomberg competitor, never mind the (high) cost of sales or development costs. Nevertheless, there's no shortage of niche financial software/data products in the $2k per head range, but there's a reason they're not growing big enough to threaten Bloomberg.