Analysis of STRATFOR



Analysis of STRATFOR

- Strengths/Weaknesses/Opportunities/Threats -

by

Marko Papic

INTRODUCTION - ANALYSIS OF THE ENVIRONMENT:

I see the next 2-5 years of STRATFOR’s environment as not radically different from the current. However, I think we should see a continued emphasis towards new mediums for media delivery, so more and more news/analysis companies will look to deliver their product on mobile devices and to dabble in different mediums (so podcasts, short video formats, etc.)

Also, I see the end of “one-stop-shop” media houses like CNN, BBC, etc. Consumers have enough technological savy to seek out information outlets based on their need. ESPN is such a successful product because they figured this out long before anyone else did. They created a cable news network that deals only in sports, something that at the time was radical. Similarly, the weather network (and ) is so successful because they specialize in providing consumers with the weather. Why would anyone go to or for either weather or sports today?

Following this logic, I see “analysis” being specialized away from the CNN’s and BBC’s as well. This means that we are already there in terms of product. In terms of delivery (in our case over the internet and in rapid time frame) we are also doing well. Therefore, in terms of delivery we also have an advantage over the Economists of the world. We offer something that is rapid and in a format that is easily accessible. The problem that the Economist has is that it is “saddled” with its magazine, format that is essentially crippling its ability to respond in an up to date fashion.

Therefore, my analysis of the next 2-5 years is that we are well positioned and that the environment is favorable.

HOWEVER, I think we have some serious problems in capturing the market and in pushing out our product. I have therefore concentrated on the issues of BRANDING and MARKETING for the rest of the analysis. I make some pretty specific suggestions in how I think we could help our efforts to put forward our superior product and capture more of the market.

SUMMARY:

STRATFOR is a geopolitical analysis / private intelligence company. While there are a number of competitors that offer (some) geopolitical analysis or private intelligence, no competitor actually provides it in the kind of succinct, fast-reaction and focused medium as STRATFOR.

In this analysis I look at the market that STRATFOR currently occupies, and its strengths/weaknesses/opportunities/threats. While I offer some suggestions regarding the product itself, the analysis is much more focused on the competitors, consumers and the marketing of the product.

The main conclusion is that the product STRATFOR currently fields is superior to that of its competitors because of its emphasis on speed and analysis. However, this is absolutely and completely irrelevant when it comes to the access to the MARKET and the CONSUMERS. Business success is related to the quality of the product, but not directly correlated. I offer some suggestions as to how we can focus our strategy so as to make our superior product more visible and accessible. Principally, I believe we need to expand efforts to brand STRATFOR as a leader of geopolitical analysis, read by the leaders of the field and consumed by the geopolitically aware… quickly. That is what I think is our core competency, the ability to get our analysis out quickly.

I concentrate mainly on our product of geopolitical analysis, therefore the web-based publishing side of the company. The CIS is not my expertise, although I have some ideas on it. It is my opinion that the CIS side of the business would also consequently benefit from a better BRANDING of STRATFOR. At the end of the day, CIS is about direct sales, it is about making contact with potential clients and selling them STRATFOR’s services. To do that, they need to already be aware of STRATFOR in a positive way.

I. STRATFOR SITUATIONAL/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:

STRATFOR does not provide the news, it is not a wire service or a news outlet that “breaks” news. We analyze and interpret the news in a non-partisan manner, emphasizing geopolitical trends and their significance and of course emphasizing speed of response. Many of our competitors do this in one part or another. CNN, Fox News and other cable news outlets do provide some analysis, but it is usually skewed (which is good for their business because most consumers of media want to be told what is happening in the world through partisan packages). The Economist provides analysis, but not on a daily basis. The Eurasia Group is much more client focused.

While our company succeeds in providing consumers with a superior product, the STRATFOR brand itself is not as strong as it could be, in my opinion. We can assess this purely based on the demographics of our readership and the geographical reach of our internet site. We are very respected outside of the US, but we do not tap this through our revenue stream.

• STRENGTHS:

Response Time:

Our strength is our incredibly quick response time. We must begin to emphasize this in our marketing. This is our one clear advantage over the competition and one that will grow over time as the market and technology to access the market develops in the future.

The “news” outlets (cable and others) beat us in speed, but consumers often have to sort out through ancillary information in order to get to what is important (on you have to navigate through stories of hermaphrodites having two-headed babies and heroin addicted elephants beating their addiction -- actual headline from Sept 4 -- to get to what is really important). The Economist has much more detailed and thorough analysis, but it comes to the consumer late. We have what is important, while it is still hot and we deliver the analysis as soon as the event occurs. This will become more and more important as people look to diversify their sources of information and move away from one-stop-shopping that are CNN and BBC.

While most analysis companies take days/weeks to make a competent analysis, we take hours, sometimes minutes. This is due to the combination of intellectual leadership, superior methodology and an analyst group that is competent in understanding the entire world at the same time. This is key. Many of our analysts could probably be replaced with experts on a particular region or a particular theme. However, each of our analysts (well, we hope) has the ability to wrap the entire world around our in-house methodology and produce analysis on the spot.

Again, we have a superior product, I have very little to add to how we make the proverbial widgets… It is their selling that I think we can improve.

As a highly experienced fashion consultant told me after analyzing our website, “you concentrate on the product… that is so 1980s”. Our product is already superior… we need to brand it so that we position it for the switch away from one-stop-shop media outlets that I believe is coming.

• WEAKNESSES:

Branding:

Our brand needs more recognition. We need to position ourselves aggressively as the up-to-date, minimal reaction time, geopolitical analysis company. Because our strength is response time, we need to brand ourselves as “quick response” company. “The stop for all your geopolitical analysis needs.” You’ll watch CNN for the weather/sports/geopolitics, you’ll pick up The Economist to get the nitty-gritty details, but in between the two you will log on to to get the immediate sense of what is important today, why is it important, and what you should be watching out for. If you are interested in geopolitics, you will log on to first thing in the morning. Then you can go and read The Economist for more in debt understanding… if you ever have the time to leaf through their dense articles.

Pricing:

The demographics of our readers is easy to guess. Even without asking Aaric for the information I could basically deduce that we are read (through subscription) mainly by retired military types and market traders. These are the only two groups that are willing to spend $350 on our subscription. We need to start capturing other consumers through hierarchical pricing and alternative subscriptions.

This is not just about money. It is also about being able to capture the new media platforms that become dominant for news and analysis. If iPhone’s are the next medium for reading news and analysis, and we are stuck with a clientele of mostly over 50 year olds, then we will lose out based on our commitment to our main revenue stream.

• OPPORTUNITIES:

New Media:

With the decline of publishing and new technologies (iPhone, crackberries, etc.) our more prominent competitors are being squeezed out. CNN, The Economist and the Eurasia Group may look much better than us (respectively) on TV, glossy magazine print or in person at their impressive London/NY/Washington offices. But, on the iPhone screen we all look the same. We need to capture this advantage without alienating our old and cranky loyal base. This is difficult, but not impossible.

Technology and new media is what made STRATFOR as an idea and as a company possible. Private intelligence / global analysis company covering the entire world based primarily out of an Austin office with less than 30 full time analysts would have been impossible to imagine as recent as 1995. We need to continue to press the advantage of technology and use asymmetric warfare on our opponents. We are quick, nimble and are not wedded to old mediums (The Economist has to keep publishing a magazine… their business plan is based on that… that is a disadvantage). That said, we must make sure that we don’t become wedded to any one website format. If something jumps out that is useful, then we need to examine its utility and go after it if it is indeed useful.

We must not stop pushing the limits of new media, the moment we do we lose our advantage of being “light on our feet” and will get blown out of the water by the big boys. Think Vietcong and the Tet Offensive. The Tet was a disaster for the Commies because the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong decided to take on the US with conventional weapons. We must not stop thinking in terms of guerilla tactics. We are the terrorists.

• THREATS:

Competitors:

We must make sure that we extend our brand, even if our subscribers don’t immediately change. Our competitors are more visible even though their product is not superior. The world of business is littered with carcasses of companies that fielded superior products. BETAMAX vs. VHS as the most obvious example.

Obscurity through clientele:

We could become so wedded to satisfying our current clientele that through catering to them we miss opportunities that would make us more competitive against traditional rivals. If we feel like something will substantially improve how we deliver our analysis, say a new format for the website, we should not shirk from implementing it.

II. MARKET ANALYSIS:

PRICE:

Our price is our biggest detriment at the moment, in my opinion. Priced at $350 a year, we are too expensive for the casual reader of geopolitics (The Economist subscription is cheaper). People who are geopolitically aware would benefit from our readership, but they do not need it, particularly not for $350 a year. Over the past two weeks (since George’s call for analysis came out) I talked to quite a few people I know: business contacts across the world, diplomats, professors, students and they all essentially said the same thing:

- Like the product

- Do not need it to understand what is going on, but I would like to read it on consistent basis anyway

- Because I do not need it to understand, I certainly wouldn’t pay $350

- Would pay $50-$100 a year

Therefore, we right now price a huge consumer base out of our services.

• Recommendations:

Hierarchical Memberships:

Right now it is not clear to our high priced corporate clients that they are special or to our regular clients that there is more to us than what they get. I would suggest we separate our membership lines to add a much more expensive ($500-$1000 a year) membership. This does not necessarily mean we will give them more bang for their buck, we just need to make it look to our current readers like there is more to Stratfor, some shady and dark side that they cannot afford -- this will make them feel like they are part of something (even with their $350 membership) much greater then themselves. We thus start thinking of our PRICE as a MARKETING tool!

This means we should include a high priced “GOLD Membership”. But don’t call it “GOLD Membership”. That sounds cheap. Call it “STRATFOR - The First Directorate”, or something ominous like that. Make it ludicrously expensive (maybe even more than $1000 a year). Give direct access to analysts on a 24 hour basis to those clients. The idea here is NOT to actually have anyone pay for this service (although if anyone does then that is great -- although somewhat of a headache). The idea is to make the $350 clients feel like we are hot and that they are lucky we even offer the $350 membership. Let the “GOLD” members have the ability to listen in on our meetings (difficult I know…). Either way, use this membership as a MARKETING tool.

The Opinion Leaders Strategy:

Using the “GOLD” membership, go to “Opinion Leaders” and offer it to them for free. Make them feel like we are giving away $1000-$2000 a year product. Use contacts that the Stratfor executives (Fred and George in particular) have to give this away to people who can pass on Stratfor’s name. Hit up people in politics, media and even show business (I’m sure Fred can help with the latter).

If this works for the fashion world, it should work for us as well. The Economist is so passé, we can make Stratfor the hot “accessory” in the information age. The website to visit on one’s iPhone. But don’t dismiss this is a trivial tool. Branding STRATFOR means making new subscribers, and our current ones, feel like they are part of more than just an online analysis readership. They are paying for a lifestyle that emphasizes being geopolitically aware in the world of rising threats.

The Ronald McDonald Strategy:

I believe we need to go for the kids. Pure and simple. We need to hook people to our product when they are in that impressionable 18-22 age group, when they can easily be hooked on to Stratfor and maintain brand loyalty. The Economist is very good at doing this, they have a special “student discount” on their membership and have hooked many a youth to their neoliberal line.

This works! There is a reason I am referring to this as the “Ronald McDonald” strategy… it worked wonders for McDonalds. I myself first started reading Stratfor because of a tip from a college friend (same friend who now provides us with classified Mexican government intelligence as a source purely based on his respect for Stratfor… and guess what… he does not want to spend $350 on our membership… think about that).

However, most students cannot afford our subscription. We should offer an extremely subsidized price to college students, say at $60-$80 a year. BUT, don’t advertise this on the website as we obviously do not want to upset the $350 subscribers.

We could go to the “international relations” student organizations and IR departments or public policy schools directly. Get the geeky keeners who depend on up to date geopolitical analysis to get laid and for prestige within their cliques.

It would take me a few weeks to get us a mailing list of all relevant groups we would want to target. We should make sure we target Canadian, Australian and British universities as well. Get the name out there and hook the kids while they are young. We are thinking of thousands of potential new subscribers. The price we charge them is PRACTICALLY IRRELEVANT. The only reason we even charge is because we don’t want them to think we are a cheap product. Give them our product for a slightly more expensive price than The Economist’s student price.

But the bottom line is that A) we are tapping a demographic that would otherwise be priced out (so free money) and B) building a loyal following among the iGeneration. These are the “leaders of tomorrow” who within 4-5 years of graduating will have the $350 for a STRATFOR membership. Also, it will introduce a new clientele that we desperately need, not so much for the revenue but so that we can start thinking of new mediums and new ways of information delivery. With our current clientele, we can start feeling too comfortable with what we do because they don’t like (nor do they call for) any updates or alternative delivery methods.

PROMOTION/BRAND:

Obviously a lot of my recommendations on the PRICE have to also do with the BRAND. I believe we should get a clear understanding of what we do and then attack on branding that. So in my opinion our core competency would be: STRATFOR provides up to date, rapid forecasts and analysis of the day’s foremost geopolitical events. There is a market for this already and in the world of increased threats (new Cold War brewing, rise of US challengers, etc.) this is essential. The emphasis is again on the “rapid” part of the story. That is what we do better than anyone else.

Right now we are a primarily geopolitical analysis company with some CIS work, but mostly concentrating on the analysis. If we are going to continue to do more and more analysis, the CIS side of the company in a way becomes part of our MARKETING strategy. We want our subscribers to think that we do a lot more custom intelligence, that we are a private CIA and that what they get is therefore just a glimpse of the total package.

However, we need to be more aggressive in our BRAND promotion. One thing I learned from an old direct sales executive is that you always park the car driven by your best salesman outside of your office. You always make sure the salesman with the BMW gets the front door parking spot and the guy with the Daewoo parks out back. In our case, we need to start emphasizing our global reach, which is impressive already. Sure, we do not have “offices” anywhere else, but we have, for all intents and purposes, “branches” in China, South Africa, Canada, Romania, Belgium, Australia, Macedonia, etc. Start emphasizing that global reach. Make it obvious on the website. We could therefore tone down the “free book” deals and “testimonials” (except maybe for a very few obvious ones, like Barrons) and push “in your face” examples of how broad our networks are or how influential our reach is.

We should maybe also start a marketing campaign. Perhaps we could take out a full page ad in Foreign Affairs. This is not necessarily because we want the people who read Foreign Affairs to subscribe to Stratfor, it is mainly so that we can get our name out there. This is for the benefit of our own subscribers so that they feel like they should be lucky they can even afford us at $350. Foreign Affairs is just a suggestion, I am sure there are other options as well. Eurasia Group does this; they have ads in Foreign Affairs which is why I suggest it.

* Recommendations:

- Emphasize our reach and put forward all of our best assets

- Begin a focused marketing campaign.

PRODUCT and SERVICE:

I believe our product is superior. There are some ways in which we can improve its delivery and tweak aspects of it on the website. However, I really believe that what is up to us now is to find new ways to deliver our product and to package it. I offer suggestions that I believe take into account the changing field of publishing in the next 2-5 years.

• Recommendations:

The International Strategy:

We should try to market ourselves better abroad. We are already doing this by making ourselves more available to foreign media. However, we should also consider creating an “embedded” Stratfor line. Le Monde Diplomatique and German DW have this already. They give rights to foreign media (so say a Bulgarian news website) to translate their news/analysis and post them on the website. We should think about doing this as well. We are already being translated across the world and re-printed. Why not CONTROL what is being reprinted in the format we want.

Take Serbian media for example. Serbian media LOVES Stratfor. The latest few weeklies and diaries have been read religiously in Serbia. However, when we don’t control their publication, the Serbs often mess up how they attribute the articles. They almost never explicitly state . If we controlled how our information was “embedded” in other media outlets, we could provide links and stamp our LOGO all over the information.

Here is an example: GO to the bottom right corner of Blic’s website. Blic is a Serbian newspaper owned by a German publishing house. They carry Deutsche Welle analysis and information, translated in Serbian, right on their website, “embedded” in a way that gives DW maximum exposure. We could easily do this. We don’t have to charge either, just offer a daily summary of our analysis, focused per region, to a number of our favorite outlets. So, B92 in Serbia could get a package of Eurasian analysis while Kuwait Times would get MESA analysis.

Either way, we are currently extremely respected abroad, but this is not reflected in our revenue. We need to build up our BRAND so that we could potentially start seeing some revenue from overseas subscribers. This is not that much of a stretch. People abroad read Stratfor because they believe we represent what America is thinking. We need to emphasize that and make us more available.

Finally, we need to offer something more to our readers in Canada. They are disproportionably represented in our readership and we need to reward them for it. We need to hit up their universities and Ottawa to look for new readers and subscribers.

The Mobile Website Strategy:

We need a mobile version of our website… The m-. All competitive news and media outlets have this. This is not urgent, but it is definitely something we need to start considering. If our advantage is in asymmetric warfare, then we need to grab on to it and not let go.

Greater Emphasis on Visual Delivery:

Deliver sitreps in a visual manner. This is something I have already suggested in the past. We actually also had a few people email us this suggestion through responses. This should not be that difficult to do. Right now the sitreps flow one after another. Our website has about 4 sitreps at any one time. That means that a subscriber visiting our website needs to click on “sitreps” link to see all of them. We need to simplify this procedure by making the delivery of sitreps geographical using a map.

This will give our readers the feeling that they are in NORAD’s command center. Put a map on our front page and have it light up as sitreps arrive. BRAND this map, MARKET this map. Make it THE STRATFOR MAP. The STRATMAP. Allow people to embed this map in their blogs and other websites. Then as they click on the map to read the sitreps, they are taken to our website.

We should not be afraid of such innovation just because our cranky, old readership will fear this change. Give them an option to load the Stratfor website in its current format so that they don’t freak out. Right now the only option we have on the website is to change the font.

The iReport Strategy:

Right now it is not self evident that our readers can send us their tips. One of the most sneakiest strategies employed by CNN, Fox and other cable networks is the “iReport” function where people send in photos they took with their cell phones to the networks and then get “famous” for it.

Think about that… In the 70s and 80s one would get serious money by selling photographs or videos from the scene of crime/revolution/natural-disaster. Today, because of the iCulture, CNN and FOX and BBC have managed to scheme their readers and viewers into providing them this crucial resource for FREE!! This is a way in which the old, established companies, have managed to use new technology and media well.

We need to do the same thing with information. We should call it the “Stratfor Assets”. Make it seem cool that someone is an asset to Stratfor. Sure, a lot of what we get will be useless... most likely completely useless. But it could also lead to us getting interesting contacts abroad. There are so many people abroad (especially in the third world) who just want to give information to the good ol’ US of A. We need to make it clear that we want this information.

Podcasting:

The podcasting idea is great. Marla often does a better job with analyses than the original analyst. However, the format we use right now simply retells a story and makes it available in the morning. Meanwhile, one of our biggest deficiencies is that we do not offer a way to summarize the analyses of the day. The Diary is an interesting product in that it emphasizes the most important thread, but we do need to also offer a product to our consumers that summarizes.

Enter podcast. We should create a new podcast line that comes in the afternoon (say 6-7pm). A 10-15 minute run down of the analyses posted on the website that day. We should package this product and make it available to radio stations in the US and across the world. We could challenge BBC’s “The World” this way because we would emphasize analysis over description of events.

Authorship Strategy:

One of our great assets is that we are considered the “shadow CIA”. As such, it makes no sense for anyone other than our “superstars” (George, Peter and Fred-Scott tandem) to be visible. We may want to consider not giving names of our analysts when we give interviews for newspapers. So instead of “Eurasia Analyst Marko Papic said”, just “Stratfor analyst said”. We should ask ourselves what is the utility of having “Marko Papic” (so an actual name) associated with STRATFOR. If this will cause problems and limit our exposure, then obviously we should not do it, therefore if a media outlet demands that a name is given, then obviously we should give the name.

The point here is that there is simply no utility in exposing the names of our analysts. If we are an intelligence based analytical company, then getting to know the analyst is a privilege reserved for our subscribers and our “GOLD” members.

The STRATFOR Lists Strategy:

I think we should create “easy-to-do” products that we can package and ship off as marketing tools. The SRM project, for example, could easily be converted into something much more marketable. I am talking about “lists and indices” here.

The Eurasia Group has its Global Political Risk Index (GPRI), The Economist has all sorts of lists and statistics and there is of course the renowned “Best Cities to Live in” list done by a number of outlets, from corporate executive consulting groups to Money Magazine.

These things are easy to create and update on an annual or bi-annual schedule. We could of course get the CT team to think of some “threat lists” and the geopol team could do a few country risk assessment lists. This is simple stuff that will get a lot of play, a lot of re-publication. Business executives, and mass public at large, is obviously list crazy. All we need to do is create some index that is well researched (but at the end of the day just an index) and we can get a lot of play. We could then market it as “The STRATFOR list of…” Rodger and his East Asia team are crazy about Vietnam as a China replacement in the next 10 years, let’s sell that as a list somehow…

This is not being simple. We can use our superior analytical tools to really get a few well researched products out that are updated on a regular frequency.

The STRATFOR CARTOGRAPHY Section:

One of our obvious strengths, and everyone I talk to who reads Stratfor says this, are our maps. We have a great map department and we need analysts and graphics guys to work closely together on continuing to put great maps on the site.

However, we should get a lot more out of our maps than we do at the moment. First, we should make all our maps available from a database (by theme and region) on the website. We should call it STRATFOR - Cartography. We should also make all of our maps free and available for re-publication on blogs as long as a standardized caption is used. This would be a great marketing tool. Same goes with our big interactive pieces, like the Saudi Arabia one that Reva did recently. These should be made free because the potential for them to draw in new readers and subscribers is huge. Just think how much play we get right now from people emailing George’s weeklies and diaries. Now think how many people would forward a really well made interactive piece.

Embedding different types of analysis/data

We have a great delivery mechanism on our website of analyses in that you can always look up a country and have all the analyses we wrote on it available real quickly. We should expand these “country pages”.

One way to do this would be to use the tabs we have on the “country pages” to deliver different products. At the moment the two tabs we use are the “view” and “archives” tabs. We could easily add the “geopolitical imperatives” tab to include the series of geopolitical imperatives we wrote earlier in the year or any other number of tabs… We could also add tabs with various terrorism databases, so for Algeria we could add a tab that would quickly take the subscriber to a document where we keep a running list of all the terrorist attacks in Algeria (we have this already, so why not use it for the website).

CONCLUSION:

We are at an advantage. We provide up to date geopolitical analysis of the day’s most important geopolitical events. None of our competitors do this. In today’s world where everything is sped up, where people don’t have the time to read newspapers with their morning coffee anymore, we have the product that works. The kind of technologies that are being developed and the kind of mediums emphasized are favorable for our product. They are making asymmetric competition against our more established and better funded rivals extremely possible. They are looking at us with worry.

People are tired of sifting through ancillary information. One-stop news and media outlets are useless. If you want the exact weather, you’re not going to wait for 7:45pm to hear it on the evening news, or hope that it is next up on CNN, you’ll log on to . If you want the latest sports analysis, you’re not going to wait for 7:50pm on the evening news, or hope that it is next up on CNN, you’ll log on to . Similarly, if you want to know what happened today, and most importantly for us, why/how what happened today is important, you’ll turn to . Our product is already made for this. We just need to emphasize it more through focusing our brand and marketing to reflect the reality of the product.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download