Thomson Reuters (TRI)

All Comments on TRI

  • commenter
    User 136208
    Jan 04 12:35 PM
    Jim Cramer's Mad Money Lightning Round, 1/2/08: Farewell, Wells Fargo [view article]
    What is his suggestion on Wells Fargo?
    Reply
  • commenter
    Mr. Peabody
    Jan 03 06:43 PM
    Jim Cramer's Mad Money Lightning Round, 1/2/08: Farewell, Wells Fargo [view article]
    The headline is "Farewell, Wells Fargo" Reply
  • commenter
    User 91238
    Jan 03 03:59 PM
    Jim Cramer's Mad Money Lightning Round, 1/2/08: Farewell, Wells Fargo [view article]
    Where is Wells Fargo mentioned in the story? Reply
  • commenter
    Mr. Peabody
    Jan 03 11:21 AM
    Jim Cramer's Mad Money Lightning Round, 1/2/08: Farewell, Wells Fargo [view article]
    So where's the Wells Fargo comment?

     Reply
  • commenter
    sfskeptic
    Dec 18 10:02 PM
    Soon To Be Worthless: Nielsen Net Ratings and comScore Media Metrix [view article]
    Barry, you are completely uninformed. Stupid and completely worthless post. Traffic assignment has been occurring for very legitimate reasons for well over 5 years. Oh and fyi, SCOR's market cap is currently cost to $1B. With predictions like these, I'm glad you're not managing my money! Reply
  • commenter
    Lisa
    Dec 10 03:35 PM
    Reuters, NY Times Partner to Produce IHT's Business Section [view article]
    This is a real pity, as the Bloomberg coverage in the IHT was really excellent. Reply
  • commenter
    munger
    Nov 04 10:11 PM
    Soon To Be Worthless: Nielsen Net Ratings and comScore Media Metrix [view article]
    What is his point? would Barry like to be able to retain 100% of the ratings value that is brought to his blog via syndicate so that he could charge higher CPM rates? He-and other creators of content-can decide whether the reveune share agreements offered are good deal for them. As long as the traffic is correctly measured and marketed then the assignment of traffic isn't the scam that is rant claims it is. Reply
  • commenter
    user123455
    Nov 01 09:50 PM
    Soon To Be Worthless: Nielsen Net Ratings and comScore Media Metrix [view article]
    A great response to a horribly written article. I love when hedge fund managers know nothing about an industry, blog about it using a shocking headline to get attention OR to hype a short position gone bad, and then get shot down. LOL! Reply
  • commenter
    user123455
    Nov 01 09:50 PM
    Soon To Be Worthless: Nielsen Net Ratings and comScore Media Metrix [view article]
    A great response to a horribly written article. I love when hedge fund managers know nothing about an industry, blog about it using a shocking headline to get attention OR to hype a short position gone bad, and then get shot down. LOL! Reply
  • commenter
    User 113182
    Oct 12 01:59 PM
    Soon To Be Worthless: Nielsen Net Ratings and comScore Media Metrix [view article]
    I had the opportunity to read Mr. Ritholtz’s blog “Soon To Be Worthless: Nielsen Net Ratings and comScore Media Metrix” and I wanted to take the opportunity to set the record straight regarding the practice of traffic assignment in our industry. First, I want to fully disclose that I am a comScore employee serving as Executive Vice President in charge of the Media Metrix business. As Mr. Ritholtz points out in his blog, the use of traffic assignment is a very strong practice within our industry and it is for a very good reason. As the Web has become more fragmented, publishers are constantly challenged to deliver more relevant audiences and value to advertisers and marketers. The aggregation of traffic with similar content is one way to accomplish this. But at the end of the day, it comes down to a numbers game where higher reach is more desirable and larger audiences will get an advertisers attention. Perhaps a good illustration is Conversational Media, where individual sites/blogs have small audiences, but in aggregate, the category reaches over half a billion people worldwide, based upon comScore's tracking

    Hundreds of companies employ this practice of traffic assignment to other companies. However, it is important to note that ownership of these sites is in no way impacted nor does the traffic from these sites disappear. Instead, it allows them to be aggregated into a larger roll up that at the end of the day can hold more appeal for a prospective advertiser. The traffic from the individual sites can still be viewed as part of the roll-up assuming it is requested by the aggregator, and the traffic meets minimum sample and reporting standards. In many situations, traffic of assignment can actually benefit a site in terms of visibility within ratings reports and can allow it to further monetize its traffic without having to build up an expensive sales force on its own.

    It is worthwhile to note that traffic of assignment has been within our industry for many years now and in fact has been incorporated into the proposed industry-wide IAB Nomenclature project that has the active involvement and support of leading players within the industry including publishers, advertisers and agencies. Our procedures for accepting traffic assignments are very rigorous. We require consent, a legitimate business purpose, and do not allow the traffic to be assigned multiple times. The latter requirement ensures that the audience represented in the ratings report is not double counted as a result of different publishers claiming assignment to the same site. With these safeguards in place, the notion that traffic is being stolen is simply not true. The fact that Mr. Ritholtz opted to not acquiesce with the three requests he was presented with during the summer validates the rules of full consent and non-duplication. If he did not consent, his traffic will not be credited to anyone but himself assuming his site is large enough to show up in the ratings report.

    From a business and online ad sales perspective, it’s all about delivering audiences to advertisers that allow them to meet their goals and objectives. The aggregation of larger audiences with relevant content whether it is through 100% ownership or traffic assignment, is a legitimate way to make the audience more compelling to buy by marketers and advertisers. At the end of the day, this continues to be a business measured through dollars and cents. And through these practices, stronger online audiences can be created to drive more ad revenue and that is what will help to continue to make the online world go round.
    Reply
  • commenter
    Derrick
    Sheilds
    Oct 09 11:29 AM
    My Website
    Soon To Be Worthless: Nielsen Net Ratings and comScore Media Metrix [view article]
    I'm confused by the premise of the article. Give me an example of how a blogger can assign a measure of web traffic themselves...

    You agree to sign the Letters of Agreement assigning all key syndicated traffic measurement firms, including but not limited to Nielsen Net Ratings and ComScore (SCOR) Media Metrix . .

    This isn't clear to me. Where and how do you just 'assign' metrics like this to these companies?     Reply
  • commenter
    lenny247
    Aug 03 09:17 AM
    Thomson Corporation: Good News For Investors [view article]
    Technically you are correct and TOC does not own any newspapers directly, anymore– my bad. Since I was covering the stock specifically, I should have left that one sentence out. However, Thomson USED to own a TON of newspapers, most notably, the Globe and Mail (the only good newspaper in Canada imo). Though TOC does not own the Globe anymore, the Thomson family has served as the figureheads of the paper since 1980. Through its holding company Woodbridge, and as the largest shareholder with a 40-percent stake in Bell Globemeida, the Thomson familly actaully have control of the Globe. Thus, I always associate the Thomson familly with the Globe. Of course, I’m sure you knew all of this when you posted your rude comment about me losing all credibility, but decided to be brief – very impressive. However, before I throw in the towell, let’s see how TOC does over the next year and then come talk to me about credibility – the stock market does not lie. inspectorSTOCK.com … we put the OCK, in stock. Reply
  • commenter
    marcello.mon
    tanari
    Jul 31 08:31 AM
    Thomson Corporation: Good News For Investors [view article]
    Thomson does not own any newspapers much less "a massive newspaper division". You lost all credibility. Reply
  • commenter
    Long-Short
    Guy
    Jul 22 09:44 AM
    6 Book Stocks To Watch [view article]
    Related:
    <blockquote>
    <b>Post-Potter Scholastic May Face Shareholder Exodus</b>

    After the final adventures of Harry, Hermione and Ron, Scholastic Corp. may face an exodus of shareholders if the company doesn't consider selling itself.

    Investors including Mark Boyar of Boyar Asset Management Inc. say the New York-based publisher should be sold because Chief Executive Officer Richard Robinson, who has run Scholastic since 1975, hasn't used the windfall from ``Harry Potter,'' the biggest hit in books in the past decade, to build successful new businesses. Robinson said today he has no intention of selling...
    </blockquote>

    Source:
    www.bloomberg.com/apps...;sid=atlUG0CHPbKs&...     Reply
  • commenter
    Mary Ellen
    Stevens
    Jul 12 01:21 PM
    The Ins and Outs of Terror-Free Investing [view article]
    MPVALUCH

    Thanks for responding. The fact is that the article does not "slam" any company.
    The article simply reports on the actions of the government and the issues floating around among states and others to try to get a handle on this particular form of social investing that is also being driven in part by government actions.

    The article takes no position on any company and does not take a position on whether terror-free investing is a good or bad idea, helpful or hurtful for international outcomes, or suitable or unsuitable for any person. The article reports on the phenomenon and does not promote the matter one way or the other.

    You have misread the article and might look at it once again to see that no opinion is expressed about any company.

    If anything, the article suggests that the process might in fact create some undesirable to unjust outcomes in the implementation.

    You are certainly correct that SEC filings are historical and SEC reviews of filings take some time after the filing, so it is highly likely that the SEC will continue to list certain companies for a limited period of time as having operations that may have been discontinued.

    Sorry the article was upsetting to you, but your emotional reaction is misplaced. If you have concerns about how the SEC does its work, you might direct your concerns to them and not to those who report on the work of the SEC.

    Richard Shaw
    QVM Group LLC     Reply
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links: