Thread regarding Thomson Reuters layoffs

This cost us more than it saved

In my own opinion impact on revenue by closing language desks was underestimated. Eikon looks very poor comparing to BBG (gaps in content, lot of bugs in apps like FIPA, swpr which could not be solved for years) I know customers who were raising >10 cases for the same repeating issue and every time content team was only correcting data instead of trying to find root cause. Also It’s a shame that we have different fx calendars for Eikon and DSS and could not make them compatible despite of many concerns from clients side. There are only few examples...

So much this! Those on top seem incapable of thinking past immediate savings. Yes, they saved some money short term. But long term, this is turning into a disaster. And I'm guaranteeing you thsi is not the only decision that's costing us more in the long run...

by
| 1164 views | | 1 reply (last ) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+VMfk2CL

1 reply

This is a lacking analysis. Let me break this down for you, using original posters (OP) own post.

OP admits that TR product has issues compared to other products. OP then assumes the goal for the new buyer is revenue parity. OP further assumes it is possible (in general). These may not be true

OP uses an example that some small number of customers raise many cases. OP assumes that these are high paying customers, and not costly pain in the rear ones making many tickets over a non issue (and not much revenue)

OP points to the fact that dev teams are not doing a good job. OP does not clarify whether they are maybe working on other more important issues. As part of this OP does do not explain what countries and markets (and languages) generate almost all the revenue for most products. Let me give you a clue- it starts and ends with USA and or English. Sorry to tell you that. Maybe dev teams are focused on those. Or, maybe dev teams are totally incompetent. If the later, then its a systemic problem, and I would refer back to point 1.

OP does not seem to understand that the main cost of any business is people cost. People cost way way more than anything else in almost any business. I am curious to know OP ever learned that. I am also curious to know whether OP knows the differencr between revenue and profit.

In summary, somone just bought a slow growing, high cost product, that is so bad it needs “language desks” (read lots of people) around the world, likely in even lower growth lower revenue markets. The dev teams are probably scattered, hard to understand, and maybe not so great. The product is also munged together, and maybe not too good under the covers. For a new buyer (BS), it does not make much sense to try to achieve revenue parity at this point. That ship has sailed. As we have pointed out many times, that is not BS role, job, or MO. Even if BS wanted to increase revenue, they would do it where smaller changes have the highest impact. BS is going to strip and sell what it can, and that means making products profitable if possible, or closing anything else.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @qzw+VMfk2CL

Post a reply

: