0:00

Support for the show comes from

0:02

Alex Partners. The market is evolving

0:04

at a breakneck speed, and we're

0:06

only starting to understand how disruptive

0:08

forces such as AI, cyber threats,

0:11

and tariffs will change the game.

0:13

The winners will be those who

0:15

prioritize execution and know when to

0:17

adapt. And for unparalleled insights, they

0:19

can turn to the Alex Partners

0:21

Disruption Index. Stay tuned to hear

0:24

more about it later in the

0:26

show. In the face of disruption,

0:28

Businesses trust Alex Partners to get

0:30

things done when it really matters.

0:32

Read more on the latest

0:35

trends in C-sweet insights at

0:37

disruption dot Alex partners.com. Disruption

0:39

dot alix partners.com. Support for

0:41

Decoder comes from Indeed. When

0:43

you realize that you needed to

0:45

hire people yesterday, there's indeed. With

0:48

Indeed, you can find relevant candidates

0:50

and qualified talent quickly. There's no

0:52

need to wait any longer. Speed

0:55

up your hiring right now with

0:57

Indeed. And listeners of this show

0:59

will get a $75 sponsored job

1:02

credit to get your job's more

1:04

visibility at indeed.com/Decoder. Just go to

1:06

indeed.com/Decoder right now and support our

1:08

show by saying you heard about

1:11

indeed on this podcast. indeed.com/ Decoder.

1:13

Terms and conditions apply. Hiring? Indeed

1:15

is all you need. Support for

1:18

Decoder comes from AR. Have you

1:20

ever wondered what's powering your smartphone

1:22

and other devices we interact with

1:24

daily? Or what lies at the

1:27

heart of life-saving drug discoveries and

1:29

robotic surgeries? The answer is arm.

1:31

Arm technology is moving the world

1:33

forward, enabling AI to create a

1:35

more meaningful, more connected life for

1:38

everyone, everywhere. Arm believes the future

1:40

isn't about technology. It's about people,

1:42

and the possibilities technology can offer

1:44

us all. The future is built

1:46

on arm. You can discover more

1:49

at arm.com/discover. Hello

1:53

and welcome to Decoder. I'm Neil Appetel, editor-in-chief

1:55

of the Virgin, and Decoder is my show

1:57

about big ideas and other problems. Today

1:59

I'm talking Almar Latour, who is publisher

2:01

of the Wall Street Journal and CEO

2:03

of its parent company Dow Jones, which

2:05

is most easily thought of as a

2:07

huge research and data provider for other

2:09

companies. And Dow Jones itself is part

2:12

of Rupert Murdoch's news corp, which we'll

2:14

come back to. Now, Almar is a

2:16

fascinating guy. He started as a news

2:18

assistant at the journal in the 90s,

2:20

spent time as a tech reporter, and

2:22

eventually rose through the ranks to become

2:24

CEO in 2020. putting him in charge

2:26

of how all of it makes money.

2:28

And if you've been paying attention, you

2:30

know it's a tough time to be

2:32

making money in the news business, especially

2:34

the paid news business. There are the

2:37

usual challenges of competing with social media

2:39

platforms flooded with free content, but also

2:41

new challenges like AI copyright fights, and

2:43

now even the Trump administration, which has

2:45

been pushing hard to shut down critical

2:47

reporting and limit press freedom. Allmar has

2:49

insight into all of that. He's made

2:51

deals with AI companies like Open AI.

2:53

He's suing other AI companies like Proplexity

2:55

for training without permission, and he's pushing

2:57

to build his own AI data products

2:59

for Dow Jones customers. On top of

3:02

that, he is a fierce defender of

3:04

press freedom, who fought to have Wall

3:06

Street Journal reporter Evan Gerskovich released after

3:08

being imprisoned in Russia for over a

3:10

year. while still working in Newscorp whose

3:12

chairman Rupert Murdoch has deep ties to

3:14

Trump and who has overseen a vastly

3:16

more polarized news media. So, Almar and

3:18

I talked about all of that, and

3:20

I really pushed him on a few

3:22

of his answers, especially right at the

3:24

top of the conversation when I asked

3:27

him at the journal cutting a huge

3:29

chunk of its tech reporting team literally

3:31

the day before we recorded. To his

3:33

credit, Almar was game, and he hung

3:35

in there for all of it, but

3:37

you will hear him literally congratulate me

3:39

for almost getting him to slip up.

3:41

I did my best. There's a lot

3:43

going on in this episode, and I

3:45

think many of you will have thoughts

3:47

on it. So let's just get right

3:49

into it. Allmar Latour, CEO Dow Jones,

3:52

and publisher of the Wall Street Journal.

3:54

Here we go. Allmar

4:03

Latour, you are CEO of Dow Jones and

4:05

the publisher of the Wall Street Journal. Welcome

4:07

to Decoder. Great to be here. Thank you.

4:09

I have a lot to talk about with

4:11

you. There's an entire set of, I think,

4:13

complicated AI questions that might be existential for

4:15

the meat industry, but you're heavily invested in

4:17

building some of that technology and building some

4:19

of those services, which I think is interesting. There's

4:22

the general state of the press in 2025, which

4:24

I want to talk to you about. I know you're

4:26

very interested in press freedom. Yes. But

4:28

it happens that I have you on the

4:30

day after the news, and so I

4:32

want to start with news. Yes. Just last

4:35

night, the Wall Street Journal, of which

4:37

you are the publisher, restructured how it covers

4:39

tech and media that involves cutting about

4:41

10 or 12, 15 editors and reporters. Obviously,

4:44

I'm personally very interested in how you structure

4:46

a newsroom to cover tech. Why make

4:48

that decision? Why get smaller? This is

4:50

a newsroom decision, so this

4:52

is squarely the terrain of

4:55

Amitaka, who is a new

4:57

editor, relatively speaking. She's a

4:59

year two, moving into year

5:01

three. Emma was hired with

5:03

the remit of helping to

5:06

increase engagement with our existing

5:08

readers and to expand our

5:10

readership and to maintain and

5:12

enhance the quality of our

5:14

coverage. She has set out

5:17

over the past two years,

5:19

really, to rethink how she

5:21

wants to offer news with

5:23

the Wall Street Journal newsroom.

5:25

Her consistent message, and this

5:27

is one that I subscribe

5:30

to, is distinctive journalism is

5:32

what makes the difference, knowing

5:34

the interesting story, the story

5:36

behind the story, and to

5:38

have exclusive journalism and exclusive

5:40

insights. That I say is

5:42

a preface because Emma has

5:44

been making changes to nearly

5:47

every part of the Wall

5:49

Street Journal and continues to do

5:51

that. And so what happened

5:53

yesterday was a continuation of

5:55

that. And generally, when you

5:57

look at, and I'm not

5:59

speaking specifically... about the San Francisco Bureau

6:01

about tech, but generally when you look

6:03

at the changes that have been brought

6:06

in she has broad in new talent

6:08

and she has an antenna for what

6:10

she thinks works there and one of

6:12

the areas where you see that. very

6:15

pronounced in recent months even as in

6:17

Washington DC that has gone through several

6:19

cycles of changes. And so she's brought

6:22

a new people that has had consequences

6:24

and the marching orders are slightly different

6:26

where there is a closer connection to

6:28

the center of the newsroom where the

6:31

decisions about news can be made

6:33

in context of a broader story,

6:35

a macro story that's happening around

6:37

the world rather than in isolation

6:39

around a certain topic. That's the

6:41

context for yesterday. I'm not going

6:43

to comment on specific individuals or

6:46

specific plans from Emma. I'll leave

6:48

that to her. I've worked with

6:50

quite a few of those people.

6:53

As you know, I was a

6:55

tech reporter myself as well. But

6:57

overall, what Emma has focused on

6:59

and what the Journal and Dow

7:02

Jones are focusing on is going

7:04

deeper and having more exclusivity, more

7:06

quote-unquote proprietary content. And those moments

7:08

like yesterday are... Absolutely never easy. I

7:11

think I see a thesis of Dow

7:13

Jones as a company, and we'll come

7:15

to the big picture in a second

7:17

here. Yes, yes. The idea is you're

7:20

going to give a bunch of people

7:22

in the business world an edge, an

7:24

information edge, whether it's with the Dow

7:26

Jones information services or some of the AI

7:28

tools or with the Wall Street Journal,

7:31

which gets a bunch of scoops and

7:33

tells people stuff they didn't know before.

7:35

But I'm just kind of looking at

7:37

Dow Jones as broadly. to 600

7:40

million that's up 3% your earnings

7:42

are up 7% to 74 million

7:44

but the cuts are like in

7:46

tech which is dominating the world

7:48

like yeah and I'm just

7:51

wondering about that resource allocation

7:53

because that that's the role

7:55

the publisher I think yeah

7:57

well it is in the sense that

7:59

The newsroom has a budget and

8:02

we support quality journalism and frankly

8:04

we are so successful at this

8:06

moment as a company that all

8:08

of our investments are in enhancing

8:11

the quality of our journalism, enhancing

8:13

quality of our data or analytics

8:15

etc. And so getting better news,

8:18

getting better information. That is the

8:20

mission, and so we are investing

8:22

in that. So I just want

8:25

to correct one simplification that sometimes

8:27

comes to the surface at moments

8:29

like this, and I don't think

8:31

you intended to do that, but

8:34

I think it's important to make

8:36

a distinction. And this is hard

8:38

when you go through what is

8:41

at an individual level super, super,

8:43

super hard, you know, what happened

8:45

yesterday and many times in journalism.

8:47

This shift, like any other shift

8:50

that Emma has gone through, is

8:52

not to eke out more profit

8:54

by having fewer resources. There is

8:57

an overall climate inside our company.

8:59

You see our earnings growing and

9:01

you see our revenue grow and

9:03

our subscription base growing. We will

9:06

invest wherever there's a good business

9:08

case to be made and tech

9:10

and the cross section of tech

9:13

with policy with politics, with global

9:15

trade, with society is one of

9:17

the top priorities for Dow Jones,

9:20

top stories in the world. So

9:22

don't take a snapshot and say,

9:24

okay, we're going to stop there.

9:26

This is a top priority. We'll

9:29

permeate. Tech will permeate everything. Everything

9:31

is permeating everything right now. We

9:33

are looking at Washington or looking

9:36

at the announcements from Macron or

9:38

in France. And so Don't take

9:40

the snapshot, I guess, is what

9:42

I was headed at, that this

9:45

is a moment in time, talk

9:47

again in a year, and our

9:49

tech coverage should be broader, deeper,

9:52

and probably have a larger following.

9:54

I think one of the questions

9:56

I have, I run a tech

9:58

publication. Yeah. nominally a tech publication

10:01

and we are we're heavily invested

10:03

in covering policy. Yes. One of the

10:06

lines we've always used a cliche even

10:08

is the version cover everything because everything

10:10

is now a text story and that

10:12

was away I think 10 years ago of

10:15

maintaining a broad focus and now it's very

10:17

real. Elon Musk is at the state of

10:19

the Union. You can see the tech giants

10:21

fighting tooth and nail against

10:23

the Digital Services Act in the EU

10:25

and that is now a part of American

10:27

foreign policy. Do you see that is... Okay,

10:29

maybe all of the Wall Street Journal

10:31

is about tech in that way. Is

10:34

that is that getting more expansive for

10:36

you? There is a current of tech

10:38

that runs through every story at the

10:40

Wall Street Journal runs through everything at

10:43

Dow Jones in two ways as a

10:45

story and as technology, right? There's not

10:47

a part of the Wall Street Journal.

10:49

There's not a part of Dow Jones

10:52

where tech does not feature and therefore

10:54

having people cover tech and isolation is

10:56

is one One way of covering this,

10:59

in addition, tech becomes a core part

11:01

of many other beats and many other

11:03

areas that we cover. Tech is a

11:05

horizontal and it's a vertical at the

11:08

same time. We'll come back to the

11:10

AI deals you've struck. I want

11:12

to talk with them extensively, but

11:14

just in this context, like so

11:16

many publishers, you've struck a deal

11:19

with opening AI, you've struck deals

11:21

with other AI companies. Are those providing

11:23

enough revenue for you to

11:25

invest against in the newsroom?

11:27

Or are you still in wait and see

11:29

mode with those deals? I don't think

11:31

we should tether or investments in AI

11:34

to any individual AI deal. So that's

11:36

not how I look at it. And

11:38

so it's not like, oh, AI brings

11:40

in this much money and now I

11:42

can invest this much in AI. You

11:44

could, I guess, rationalize it. Or the

11:46

newsroom. Or the AI in the newsroom.

11:48

We have our investment priorities and we're

11:50

following a game plan that we've been

11:53

following for a while and you have

11:55

the meanders every once in a while

11:57

but but the goal is pretty clear we

11:59

we intend and growing in three ways.

12:01

One is by going deeper, investing

12:04

in the depth of our content,

12:06

over data, over analytics, by growing

12:08

wider, and that is by adding

12:10

new areas of expertise. So last

12:12

week we announced our agreement to

12:15

acquire Oxford Analytica, so going deep

12:17

in geopolitics. That's an addition. But

12:19

in future investments, once they are

12:21

part of Dow Jones and the

12:23

Wallster Journal. we will probably invest

12:26

in going deeper into that area

12:28

of geopolitics. And then the third

12:30

way of growing is by connecting

12:32

everything that we have, meaning that

12:35

there should be easier access to

12:37

the data that underlies everything of

12:39

Dow Jones for everything that we

12:41

do at the Wall Street Journal.

12:43

Now as to your question, investing

12:46

in the newsroom, is a goal

12:48

in itself. We are a successful

12:50

leading subscription-driven news organization. And we

12:52

grow by investing in our journalism,

12:55

not by shrinking our journalism. So

12:57

we're not, there's sometimes a temptation

12:59

to be in media an austerity

13:01

mode and just take away in

13:03

order to eke out a profit.

13:06

That's not us, and that's not

13:08

how we're growing whatsoever. I think

13:10

it's more than a temptation for

13:12

most media businesses right now. That

13:14

is the reality of the situation,

13:17

right? It costs more to make

13:19

the information than most people. can

13:21

return on it. Yeah, but if

13:23

your answer to that time and

13:26

time again is okay I'll I'll

13:28

cut in order to make ends

13:30

meet, but that's not a strategy.

13:32

You're not addressing something in your

13:34

model. You might not be addressing

13:37

something correctly in the way you're

13:39

organized, maybe where you're focused. So

13:41

that to me was never an

13:43

acceptable method to grow or to

13:46

create great journalism. I understand that

13:48

sometimes as a company in any

13:50

industry you can have your back

13:52

against. Well, you may have to

13:54

cut in order to make ends

13:57

meet, but that's not a strategy.

13:59

Yeah. And so. But people get

14:01

that wrong. I think you're absolutely

14:03

right. That might be sort of

14:06

a prevailing tendency, but I don't

14:08

think it should be. The prevailing focus,

14:10

I think, should be. Where do you

14:12

make a difference in the

14:14

news and information that you offer?

14:16

How do you make that distinctive?

14:18

How do you add value? How

14:20

do you allow people to make

14:22

decisions based on that? How do

14:24

you convince people? that they

14:26

should recognize the value of the information

14:28

that you offer. And people in the

14:31

past used to say, oh, you're a

14:33

subscription business, you're the Boston Journal, because

14:35

you're all about business, and therefore that

14:37

doesn't apply to anything else. I don't

14:40

think that is true. I think people

14:42

recognize value of a lot of different

14:44

types of information, and doesn't just have

14:46

to be about business. And so I

14:48

think there's a lot of opportunity actually

14:50

in shifting from this austerity mode to

14:53

creation mode and building mode. easier said

14:55

than done and sometimes you have to

14:57

step away from some things that just

14:59

aren't working. And that recognition of

15:01

value is very challenging. I understand why

15:03

it happens in the business community. I

15:06

even understand what happens for us in

15:08

the tech press because it's often tradable.

15:10

So you can pay a high rate

15:12

to the Wall Street Journal if you

15:14

are a Wall Street trader or an

15:17

investor, some other kind of business professional

15:19

because the information has such clear value to

15:21

you that you can use to trade upon

15:23

in some way. to make a deal or

15:26

make an investment and buy or sell a

15:28

stock. I think for the average consumer, that

15:30

information is not tradable. They can just

15:32

open TikTok and maybe there's some

15:35

influencer reading the Wall Street Journal

15:37

to them for free. In that elimination

15:39

of scarcity, I think has been the

15:41

fundamental challenge. It was the challenge we

15:44

went into social video platforms. It feels

15:46

like the challenge again for AI. The

15:48

AI platforms are going to take

15:50

all of the world's information and now...

15:53

completely eliminates. Even the scarcity of having

15:55

to click. They're just going to tell you

15:57

what the models have read on the internet. Do

15:59

you pursue? that is as existential a

16:01

challenge as some of your peers

16:04

in the media do? Yeah, first,

16:06

I think you're absolutely right in

16:08

that the bar on being distinctive

16:10

by content or news or information

16:13

that you create has gone way

16:15

up. And so you have to

16:17

be more discerning into where you

16:19

focus at. You ask about the

16:22

existential threat around AI. That goes

16:24

back to the recognition of value.

16:26

And in first instance, I want

16:28

to make sure that the industry,

16:31

but certainly now Jones and the

16:33

Wall Street Journal and all of

16:35

our publications. don't fall into a

16:37

trap that is similar to two

16:40

decades ago when all information had

16:42

to be free and people took

16:44

scraps from search engines, etc. and

16:46

then found out over time that,

16:49

hey, we've lost effectively, that we

16:51

see that market. And so that's

16:53

why we're investing time and resources

16:55

right now into making sure that

16:58

large players in the AI space.

17:00

recognize that value and our push

17:02

in first instance is to make

17:04

sure that there is a commercial

17:07

agreement around that and I think

17:09

in many cases that is on

17:11

both sides of that fence to

17:13

prefer to prefer an outcome and

17:16

then where we can't reach a

17:18

commercial agreement where there are fundamental

17:20

differences of opinion we are prepared

17:22

in some cases to say, okay,

17:24

then we'll fight it out in

17:27

court. And so we've walked both

17:29

paths with a preference for the

17:31

first. But I'm still answering your

17:33

question as to what's existential here

17:36

and is there an existential threat?

17:38

And you spend it forward and

17:40

we can get to that what

17:42

it means for the user and

17:45

how consumers respond to that. But

17:47

I think first we've got to

17:49

get to that starting blocks, if

17:51

you will, which is okay. These

17:54

are the companies that are providing

17:56

Gen AI UX and new interactions

17:58

for consumers. have gotten to that

18:00

point by using information. We need

18:03

an acknowledgement that information has value,

18:05

certainly our information. And that if

18:07

you want to use that information

18:09

on an ongoing basis that makes

18:12

sure that some of your Gen

18:14

A. I. Produced content answer to

18:16

queries is current and is reliable.

18:18

You'll have to pay us for

18:21

access if you value that. And

18:23

so that part we cannot skip

18:25

over. There's a whole other part of

18:27

this where We don't yet exactly

18:29

know how the user is going

18:31

to interact, but we see the

18:34

trending there. But that part, we

18:36

have to get right. And we're

18:38

in the middle of that, or

18:40

maybe we're at the first part

18:42

of that still, yeah. I'm

18:44

going to ask you one

18:46

more, like, very existential philosophical

18:48

question. And I need to

18:51

get back to having you

18:53

explain the company. I need to

18:55

get to the other questions. It

18:57

feels like we might be describing

19:00

a world where regular people are

19:02

awash in a sea of free lies, right, that

19:04

come to them on social media, the

19:06

social media companies are giving

19:08

up on fact checks, various

19:10

billionaires, say whatever they

19:12

want, on podcasts with no pushback.

19:15

And then what you are providing

19:17

is a very expensive source of

19:19

truth. Or hopefully what I am

19:21

providing is a. affordable source of

19:24

truth. Yeah, I would say that's

19:26

a big discrepancy, right? Yeah, I

19:28

would say whereas affordable is a

19:30

cup of coffee, like a day.

19:32

I mean, everyone drinks coffee. Like it's

19:34

not, it's not, I think it's

19:36

a myth that access to reliable

19:38

information is. is unaffordable. It is

19:40

an individual choice. I realize it's

19:42

a hard choice to make if you

19:44

don't have significant disposable income, and

19:46

that's what you're indicating. But I

19:48

do believe that there is also

19:50

a choice to be made. I

19:53

understand why people would buy the Wall

19:55

Street Journal or some indulgence as products.

19:57

We should come to. But that's the

19:59

bigger picture. It's convincing the next

20:01

consumer that they should pay

20:03

for information as opposed to

20:05

picking a filter bubble on

20:07

social media. Whether or not

20:10

that's AI or if it's

20:12

social media, if it's just

20:14

algorithms or whatever, that seems

20:16

like the challenge the media

20:18

faces. The game is, or

20:20

the challenge is, convince someone

20:22

that it's to their benefit.

20:24

to invest in having access

20:26

to reliable information, whether that's

20:28

for making decisions in the

20:31

realm of investments or technology

20:33

or policy, or whether it's...

20:35

hyper-local, and I actually want

20:37

to understand what's going on

20:39

in my community. Some of

20:41

that I might get from

20:43

AI, but some of that

20:45

I might not, and I

20:47

might want to invest a

20:50

small amount of money to

20:52

understand what's happening in my

20:54

community. And there's some examples

20:56

of that popping up, and

20:58

I think we'll see in

21:00

response to this huge question

21:02

that you're asking. We will

21:04

see innovation in journalism and

21:06

a lot of creativity in

21:09

already, and then in years

21:11

to come. where undeniably with

21:13

the truth that you just

21:15

presented that there's this flood

21:17

of information, mixed quality, undeniably

21:19

there's also huge demand for

21:21

reliable information. People are craving

21:23

it more than ever before.

21:25

In fact, the more noise

21:27

there is, the more people

21:30

are confused and the more

21:32

they are reaching for, hey,

21:34

tell me what this means.

21:36

We see this in our

21:38

data, right? We see this

21:40

when there are... The moments

21:42

of friction in society or

21:44

in business or on geopolitics

21:46

and any market, we see

21:49

a spike and people coming

21:51

to us for free, but

21:53

also we see a spike

21:55

in subscriptions demand for reliable

21:57

information I think has gone

21:59

up. as a pool of unreliable information

22:01

has grown or uncertain information. Some

22:04

of it might be reliable, some

22:06

of it might not be. So

22:08

I think you cast that as

22:10

an existential risk. I can also

22:12

cast that as an opportunity. I'd

22:14

like to be aware of the

22:17

existential risk, take the precautions there,

22:19

but mainly focus on the

22:21

opportunity and meeting that demand.

22:24

And I think we haven't.

22:26

met that demand by any

22:29

stretch. I think there's a

22:31

huge opportunity for

22:33

us and for

22:36

other publications lying

22:39

ahead to meet that

22:41

demand. And I

22:43

think that demand

22:45

will actually only

22:47

grow. We need to take

22:50

a short break. We'll be right back.

22:52

Hours are long and initially totally unpaid.

22:54

There's no guarantee of success. And yet,

22:56

the Pet Rock guy made it happen.

22:58

But if you run a business, you

23:00

know that growth hinges on harnessing the

23:03

power of a great team. If you

23:05

want to add an essential piece to

23:07

that team, you might want to check

23:09

out Shopify. Shopify is an all-in-one digital

23:11

commerce platform that wants to help your

23:13

business sell better than ever before. It

23:15

doesn't matter if your customers spend their

23:17

time scrolling through your time scrolling through

23:19

your physical storefront. Shopify says they

23:22

can help you convert browsers into

23:24

buyers and sell more over time.

23:26

And their shop pay feature can

23:28

boost conversions by 50%. There's a

23:30

reason companies like Mattel and Heinz

23:33

turn to Shopify to sell more

23:35

products to more customers. Businesses that

23:37

sell more sell with Shopify. Want

23:39

to upgrade your business and get

23:42

the same checkout Mattel uses? You

23:44

could sign up for your $1

23:46

per month trial period at shopify.com/Decoder.

23:48

All lower case. That's shopify.com/ Decoder

23:51

to upgrade your

23:53

selling today. shopify.com/Decoder.

23:56

Support for Decoder comes

23:58

from Kenstay. Do you ever

24:00

feel paralyzed with all the tasks that need

24:02

to get done? Especially if you're a small

24:04

business owner looking to promote your brand, you

24:06

want to be able to focus on the

24:08

content of your website, not the back-end minutiae

24:10

and security that comes with it. And let's

24:12

be honest, not everyone is tech savvy or

24:14

has the time to learn Java. But keeping

24:16

your website up to date is vital in

24:18

this day and age. So what do you

24:20

do? First, take a simple water. Second, take

24:23

a simple water. Look to get help from

24:25

Ken's. Kenstay has bundled up all of the

24:27

essentials to make sites stress-free with speeds that

24:29

will wow your visitors, security that never

24:31

sleeps, and a dashboard that's incredibly

24:33

intuitive. And when you hit a snag,

24:35

you'll be able to talk to real

24:37

humans, 24-7, 365. In short, Kenstay is

24:40

perfect for those who want professional results

24:42

without needing a technical background. So if

24:44

you're tired of being your own website

24:47

support team, you could switch your hosting

24:49

to Kenstay and get your first

24:51

month free. And don't worry about

24:53

the move. They'll handle the whole transition

24:55

for you. No tech expertise required. Just

24:58

visit kensay.com/decoder to get started. That's

25:00

k-i-n-st-a.com/decoder. Support for Decoder

25:02

comes from Vanta. Trust

25:04

isn't just earned. It's demanded.

25:06

Whether your startup founder navigating

25:08

your first audit or a

25:10

seasoned security professional scaling your

25:13

GRC program, proving your commitment

25:15

to security has never been

25:17

more crucial or more complex.

25:19

That's where Vanta comes in.

25:21

Businesses use VANTA to establish trust

25:23

by automating compliance needs across over

25:25

35 frameworks like SOC 2 and

25:28

ISO 27001. VANTA also helps centralized

25:30

security workflows, complete questionnaires up to

25:32

five times faster, and proactively manage

25:34

vendor risk. VANTA not only saves

25:36

you time, it could also save

25:39

you money. A new IDC white

25:41

paper found that VANTA customers achieve

25:43

$535,000 per year in benefits and

25:45

that the platform pays for itself

25:48

in just three months. You could

25:50

join over 9,000 global companies like

25:52

Atlacian, Cora, and Factory who use

25:54

Vanta to manage risk and prove

25:57

security in real time. For a

25:59

limited time, Our audience gets

26:01

$1,000 off Vanta at

26:03

vanta.com/Decoder. That's v-a-n-t-a.com/Decoder for

26:05

$1,000 off. Welcome back.

26:07

I'm talking with Almar

26:09

Latour. Before the break, we were

26:12

talking a lot about his role as

26:14

publisher of the Wall Street Journal,

26:16

which is half of his job.

26:18

But the other half is being

26:20

CEO of Dow Jones. You're probably

26:22

thinking that has something to do

26:24

with the very famous Dow Jones

26:27

Industrial Industrial Average. But the company

26:29

actually sold that off on the

26:31

go. Now it's much more of

26:33

a data and insights provider.

26:35

This is a good place to

26:37

back up a little. We've talked

26:39

a lot about the Wall Street

26:41

Journal. I think people know about

26:43

the Wall Street Journal. I think

26:45

Dakota Listeners also probably know about

26:47

Rupert Murdoch and News Corp, which

26:49

is the parent company of

26:51

Wall Street Journal. Describe how all

26:54

of that fits together in your role

26:56

as CEO. Think of it as a

26:58

Rubik's Cube. And inside of it is

27:00

all of our premium journalism,

27:02

our exclusives, our explanation of

27:05

what's happening right now. There's

27:07

our proprietary data that we

27:10

have on many different sectors

27:12

in the global economy. There's

27:15

factiva, many sources, thousands and

27:17

thousands of sources from around

27:20

the world, sitting inside that

27:22

Rubik's Cube. Each tile on that

27:24

Rubik's Cube is a way to get

27:26

out of Dow Jones, what is

27:29

important and relevant

27:31

to you. Maybe I want a couple

27:33

of different tiles, maybe I

27:35

want the whole thing. That's fundamentally

27:38

a way of thinking about how we...

27:41

operate and how ultimately also were organized

27:43

and AI is actually helping a great

27:45

deal with this and is accelerating this

27:48

or genitive AI AI has been an

27:50

automation has been with Dow Jones for

27:52

a long long time. Let's then make

27:54

that a little bit more complex than

27:57

that but if one of those styles

27:59

is about bond trading, I ought

28:01

to be able to get all

28:03

information, premium information, live information, but

28:05

also analytics and forecasting out of

28:08

Dow Jones to help me in

28:10

my job. The way that were

28:12

organized is sort of the cards

28:14

that I was dealt when I

28:16

took over almost five years ago

28:19

as CEO was to look at

28:21

Dow Jones is a platform of

28:23

verticals. You've got business news, it's

28:26

both a horizontal and a vertical,

28:28

but that's the Wall Street Journal,

28:30

as you say, needs no huge

28:33

explanation there. There's wealth in investing,

28:35

where we have barons, market watch,

28:37

financial news, which is a title

28:40

in the UK, but also private

28:42

equity news. We've got a compliance

28:44

arm that has data on compliance.

28:47

It helps companies discern. Should I

28:49

do business with this person

28:51

or not? Are they on

28:53

a sanctions list or not?

28:55

We've added since an energy

28:57

arm and within that commodities

29:00

and petrochemicals, we've added a

29:02

leadership arm that organically, looking

29:04

at what it takes to

29:06

be a modern leader. And

29:08

each of these verticals, if you

29:10

will, are successful when they

29:12

do four things. You have to have

29:14

news. And leading news in that

29:17

particular vertical, in that particular

29:19

area of concentration. So big,

29:21

your industry, we've got to

29:23

be, unless you have that,

29:25

you're not relevant. Second, you have

29:27

to have proprietary data. Some of that can

29:29

come out of the news, some of it,

29:31

you have to build, you have to buy,

29:34

and we've done that. If you have those

29:36

two things, you can do proper analytics,

29:38

AI helps with that to some degree.

29:41

And that's where the value keeps on

29:43

going up. if you sell products that

29:45

can do forecasting and analytics. And

29:47

then the fourth factor is convening

29:49

power, that is bringing people in

29:51

that industry, in that sector, in

29:53

that vertical, bringing them together. And

29:56

if you have those four, you

29:58

get actually a mini net. work

30:00

effect inside that industry. We've seen

30:02

that, for example, happen by

30:04

design. We've executed against this with

30:06

our manager, Joel Lange, who

30:08

runs our risk and compliance business.

30:10

If you have all those

30:12

four parts, then you see the

30:14

leaders in that industry come

30:16

together and, let's say, take the

30:18

risk and compliance. You see

30:20

compliance officers coming together in our

30:22

compliance council at Davos and

30:24

in other places. And so now

30:26

you have thought leaders there.

30:28

Well, the procurement officers who buy

30:30

our data products and see

30:32

that, oh, yeah, the people that

30:34

are leading my department or

30:36

that are leading my company are

30:38

talking on a Dow Jones

30:40

platform about these big themes. So

30:42

it anchors Dow Jones more

30:44

deeply, whether that's just an observation

30:46

and anecdotal, or whether that

30:48

actually translates into business, often it

30:50

translates into business. That has

30:53

the same effect on other analytical

30:55

products. And then if you

30:57

add news to it in that

30:59

risk vertical, we have mentioned

31:01

internally that we will have a

31:03

risk journal. So you will

31:05

have risk industry folks, compliance officers,

31:07

and the like tap into

31:09

that risk news product to actually

31:11

start their workday and understand

31:13

what's happening. Now, end to end,

31:15

we are present in your

31:17

workflow in that industry. And by

31:19

the way, since we're at

31:21

the Wall Street Journal and that's

31:23

an extension as well, we're

31:25

probably also when you go home,

31:27

we're still with you in

31:29

another way. So

31:31

that's the view of the

31:33

company and our operating model.

31:35

Build verticals that have these

31:37

four parts at a minimum.

31:39

Go deeper and make that

31:41

exclusive. This is why what

31:43

Emma is doing in the

31:45

Wall Street Journal Newsroom really

31:47

matters. More exclusives, more distinctive

31:49

journalism helps with that first

31:51

part with the news, obviously.

31:53

We've built and bought and

31:56

created more proprietary data. We've

31:58

spent well in excess of

32:00

a billion dollars on getting

32:02

companies that are specializing. that added to

32:04

a roster. We're doing more analytics and even a little

32:06

bit of consulting. We're never going to be a consulting

32:08

company, but that's an outflow of analytics. And then

32:10

convening power, I think, for a

32:12

long time in the media, was

32:14

misread as just events, but it's

32:16

something bigger, far bigger than that.

32:18

I think it's a subscription business.

32:20

It's a recurring revenue business, should

32:22

be. It doesn't mean that you

32:24

can't have sponsorship for it, but

32:26

it is fundamental to anchoring. the

32:28

decision-makers of a certain industry in

32:30

your platform. So we have that

32:32

stack. When we have that, we

32:34

call it a full stack. So

32:36

we've got a full stack in risk.

32:39

We're building a full stack in

32:41

energy and subsets of energy. And so

32:43

we're going deeper there. And then you

32:45

see us in the future. It's a

32:47

scalable model because we now understand

32:50

how do you build these verticals.

32:52

Either we can use mine the

32:54

Wall Street Journal for new verticals

32:56

because we see what people gravitate

32:59

to, where do we have the

33:01

expertise, and then build on that,

33:03

or we can inorganically add as

33:05

well, or we can organically start

33:08

outside the Wall Street Journal Newsroom.

33:10

So going deeper, going wider, and

33:12

then connecting everything is where ultimately,

33:14

if you go back to the

33:16

Rubik's Cube, if you want to

33:18

buy that whole Rubik's Cube, we

33:20

will also make that possible for

33:22

you. And so we're making sure that these

33:24

magnificent data pools are

33:26

going to be available. And some

33:28

of this is of course still,

33:30

and it works, but going to

33:33

be available to our journalists so

33:35

that they can do exclusive work

33:37

with that. You're describing Dow Jones

33:39

is something that makes really high

33:41

quality, rigorous information across its newspapers,

33:43

magazines, across its data products. That

33:46

sits within News Corp. How often do

33:48

you hang out with Rupert Murdoch? I

33:50

wouldn't put it in

33:52

the category of hanging

33:54

out whatsoever. There's a

33:56

healthy friendly interaction. He's

33:58

chairman emeritus. You know, the

34:01

caricature on a side, just he's

34:03

built enormous media success stories over

34:05

time. And so from a business

34:07

point of view, there was certainly

34:10

in my early days, there was

34:12

a lot to learn from like,

34:14

how do you create businesses and

34:16

such? But there's a. from Newscore

34:19

there's been nothing but support for

34:21

our our growth story. Yeah. And

34:23

so I'm very thankful for that.

34:25

That's that's Robert's Loughlin. It's also

34:28

Robert Thompson. It's a whole apparatus,

34:30

but the access to capital that we've

34:32

had as Doug Jones to you have.

34:34

Five years ago, we hadn't done, I

34:36

think, an acquisition for well over a

34:39

decade. Now we've done billions in acquisitions.

34:41

That's support. I would say that's

34:43

a vote of confidence for the direction

34:46

that we're taking for the strategy that

34:48

I outlined to you, going deeper,

34:50

growing wider, connecting things. But there's also

34:52

a deep respect for the independence of

34:55

the Wall Street Journal and the

34:57

value that comes with that. And so

34:59

I've seen that consistently applied. That's my

35:01

answer to your hangout question. River Murdoch

35:04

plays on both sides of the

35:06

information crisis, right? You can watch

35:08

his other properties, create whatever reality

35:10

is politically expedient for Donald Trump,

35:12

and then I can see the

35:14

Wall Street Journal. rigorously cover the

35:16

impact of tariffs, all the way down

35:18

to the opinion pages, which sometimes say

35:20

the tariffs are bad. Oh, no, they

35:22

don't just say tariffs are bad. The

35:25

opinion pages, as Trudeau, the Prime Minister

35:27

of Canada, yesterday in his press conference,

35:29

said, I don't often, I'm paraphrasing here,

35:31

I don't often quote the Wall Street

35:33

Journal, but they said that. this trade

35:35

war is the stupidest trade war in

35:38

history or something along those lines we

35:40

have run we don't hold back or

35:42

our opinion pages don't hold back and

35:45

their assessment based on well-established principles of

35:47

free markets and free people and so

35:49

that we both smile for for obvious

35:52

reasons I'm sure to ask about it

35:54

that is is core to who we

35:56

are the independence to make that judgment

35:59

is core to who we are. And

36:01

yeah, for my part, I'm focused on

36:03

the Dow Jones part of making sure

36:06

that that sings. But do you see

36:08

that contradiction? Do you think your team

36:10

see that contradiction that you're trying to

36:12

sell really high quality information while another

36:15

part of the structure that has the

36:17

same ownership is contributing to

36:19

an information crisis? Listen, I

36:21

can't. comment because of shared ownership

36:24

structure. I'm not going to comment

36:26

on my colleagues at Fox. We

36:28

had yesterday protesters outside on Fox

36:30

Square and you know people are

36:32

protesting that while the reporters in

36:35

the Wall Street Journal and Dow

36:37

Jones are doing their job. So

36:39

there is an awareness of the

36:41

perception of Fox and what we're

36:43

focused on, but I think there's

36:46

also a great awareness amongst our

36:48

staff and has been for now

36:50

over 15 years, that those two

36:52

things are separate without specifically commenting

36:54

on how you characterize that because

36:56

I'm just not going to get

36:58

into that. I want to ask

37:00

the last Dakota question and I

37:03

want to end by talking about AI kind

37:05

of at length here. You've had to make a

37:07

lot of decisions, right? You've changed the way the company

37:09

works? A lot, a lot. You obviously have a way

37:11

of thinking about the company. It's very specific. Although I

37:14

will say, Rubik's cubes are meant to be solved. And

37:16

I'm not sure that you want anyone solved. I think

37:18

you want them to remix the cube, not solve it.

37:20

But what's your framework for making decisions? How do you

37:22

make decisions? Well, I take in information a lot. And so

37:24

I'd like to be, so I'd like to a like to a, so I'd like to

37:26

a, so I'd like to a, so I'd like to a, so I'd like to a,

37:28

so I'd like to a, so I'd like to a, so

37:30

I'd like to a, so I'd

37:33

like to a, familiar with the

37:35

facts on the ground. And so

37:37

I am very consultative, take in

37:39

expertise, absorb, so I feel like

37:41

I have a level of mastery

37:43

sufficient to that make a decision.

37:45

That's one part. I'm very inquisitive.

37:48

I think the strength of good

37:50

journalists is they know how to

37:52

ask questions and they have a,

37:54

they're driven by curiosity. As an

37:56

executive, I'm driven by curiosity. I

37:58

want to figure. out how things

38:01

interact, to understand the nuances, and

38:03

so that's for my part. I

38:05

also, at the same time,

38:07

believe in letting managers manage or

38:09

creators create and making sure that

38:11

what I'm doing is to help

38:13

make those managers or those creators

38:15

make them successful. And so depending

38:18

on where we're focused, if

38:20

we're focused on something that is

38:22

important for the whole company, I

38:24

will be informed and I will

38:26

make the decision consulting my management

38:28

team. Within the framework

38:30

of the strategy that I've outlined

38:32

and the intricacies of that, I

38:35

am a firm believer in letting

38:37

the managers make decisions. And so

38:39

I have a very flat structure

38:41

where there is a lot of

38:43

autonomy to within that framework make

38:45

decisions, because I think that allows

38:47

people to move faster, allows the

38:50

company to move faster, allows us

38:52

to experiment and without going through

38:54

a central clearinghouse constantly. And so

38:56

I want, I guess both, I

38:58

want on the one hand, I

39:00

want to have the expertise. So I'm

39:02

informed, there's a limit to that because

39:04

you can't do that when you are thinking

39:06

about macro issues about everything. And so

39:08

I have to be judicious and how

39:10

I do that, where I focus that

39:12

thirst. And then on the other

39:14

hand, having that flat structure and empowering

39:17

people. We

39:20

have taken a break. We'll be back in just a minute. It's

39:31

been reported that one in

39:33

four people experienced sensory sensitivities,

39:36

making everyday experiences like a

39:38

trip to the dentist, especially

39:40

difficult. In fact, 26 % of

39:42

sensory sensitive individuals avoid dental

39:45

visits entirely. In

39:47

sensory overload, a new documentary

39:49

produced as part of Sensodyne's

39:51

Sensory Inclusion Initiative, we follow

39:53

individuals navigating a world not

39:55

built for them, where bright

39:57

lights, loud sounds, and unexpected

39:59

touch. can turn routine moments into overwhelming

40:01

challenges. Burnett Grant, for example, has

40:04

spent their life masking discomfort in

40:06

workplaces that don't accommodate neuro divergence.

40:08

I've only had two full-time jobs

40:10

where I felt safe, they share.

40:12

This is why they're advocating for

40:14

change. Through deeply personal stories like

40:16

Burnett's, sensory overload highlights the urgent

40:18

need for spaces, dental offices and

40:20

beyond, that embrace sensory inclusion. because

40:22

true inclusion requires action with environments

40:24

where everyone feels safe. Watch Sensory

40:26

Overload now, streaming on Hulu. These

40:28

days I can do anything from

40:30

my phone. Book a vacation, order

40:32

a meal from a five-star restaurant,

40:34

buy and trade stocks, but maybe

40:36

the most amazing thing I can

40:38

do is make my dirty laundry

40:40

disappear, and then reappear perfectly washed

40:42

and folded. I have rinse to

40:44

thank for that. I just schedule

40:46

a pickup in the rinse app

40:48

or at rinse.com. A rinse valet

40:51

comes to get my clothes and

40:53

before I know it, they're back,

40:55

crisply folded and ready to wear.

40:57

They even do dry cleaning, which

40:59

is returned hanging in a nice

41:01

rinse garment bag. And with rinse,

41:03

my satisfaction is guaranteed. If for

41:05

any reason I'm not happy, they'll

41:07

reclaim my clothes for free. Best

41:09

of all, rinse saves me tons

41:11

of time each week. That's time

41:13

I get to do something I

41:15

love versus something I have to

41:17

do. So if you want to

41:19

save loads of time by not

41:21

doing loads of laundry, remember. There's

41:23

an app for that. Rinse. Sign

41:25

up now and get $20 off

41:27

your first order at rins.com. That's

41:29

r-i-n-s-e.com. Where's your next vacation going

41:31

to be? Well, if you're looking

41:33

to have a vacation to remember

41:35

for your entire family, then look

41:38

no further than Virginia Beach. At

41:40

Virginia Beach, you'll be transported to

41:42

a place where you'll immediately feel

41:44

welcomed. A place all about the

41:46

good vibes, finding your tribe, and

41:48

your happiness. Enjoy their long pleasure

41:50

beach that hosts their annual festivals

41:52

and concerts. And if you're in

41:54

the mood for dinner, Make sure

41:56

to check out their waterfront dining

41:58

made from their fresh local seafood

42:00

and front-to-table ingredients. Plus, there are

42:02

an abundance of outdoor activities that

42:04

will have the whole family resting

42:06

easy when the day is done.

42:08

And the best part about it

42:10

is, you don't have to do

42:12

it alone. Virginia Beach provides different

42:14

activities for anyone of any age

42:16

to enjoy. So if you're looking

42:18

for that change of pace this

42:20

year, it might be time to

42:22

consider a nice trip to Virginia

42:25

Beach. Go to visit Virginia beach.com

42:27

to learn more. Welcome

42:32

back. I'm talking to Tao Jones CEO

42:34

Almar Latour. Before the break, we were

42:37

talking about one of the big decoder

42:39

questions, how he makes decisions. Now we're

42:41

going to take that idea and put

42:43

it into practice, specifically around AI, which

42:45

has become a major part of Tao

42:47

Jones business over the last few years.

42:49

Let's apply that to AI, that framework.

42:51

I think it's useful to have the framework

42:53

where we talk about this next set of

42:56

big shifts, because that's a lot of decisions.

42:58

You mentioned factiva earlier that's a

43:01

data platform. you're promising some generative AI

43:03

tools there. You want to offer more

43:05

of those tools to your customers across

43:07

the board. You've made some deals with

43:10

open AI. At the same time, you're

43:12

suing perplexity. What is the shape of the

43:14

AI opportunity to you? When you look

43:16

at it broadly, you're suing perplexity. You

43:18

think they're taking information away for you

43:20

without compensating you. You've made a deal

43:22

with Open AI at some rate. We

43:25

can talk about whether that rate is

43:27

enough. And then you're offering the tools

43:29

to the users to the users, right. When

43:31

you look at that whole set of things,

43:33

the number one question to

43:35

me is, okay, how big of the business

43:38

is this really? Because I don't

43:40

know if anyone's making more

43:42

money from AI than they're

43:44

spending on building my tools right

43:46

now. So we are, I think, very,

43:49

very early stage in that. And so

43:51

it's hard to say. What I can

43:53

say is that on a product side,

43:55

we see some of our products outperform

43:58

versus what we had planned. for

44:00

them. So we have a product

44:02

in our risk business called Integrity

44:05

Check. It's more of a self-serve

44:07

model where you don't have to

44:09

wait for Dow Jones to get

44:11

back to you and do its

44:14

computation using AI ourselves, but out

44:16

of review of the customer. But

44:18

instead, having the customer do some

44:21

basic research on risk and compliance

44:23

themselves, sort of assessing who they

44:25

can do business with and getting

44:27

that to sort of an 80%

44:30

reliability from there than using that

44:32

as a springboard to say, okay,

44:34

now within this, the remaining 20%

44:37

I need help from the company.

44:39

That product is fairly young and

44:41

that's performing expectations. So on the

44:44

whole, I think this will be

44:46

a net positive, but We've got

44:48

to unpack what we're talking about first.

44:51

We've got to get the foundational

44:53

elements of this right. If

44:55

we don't have proprietary information

44:57

that is truly proprietary, then

44:59

we're going to lose this

45:01

game. So you see us

45:03

engage in building products, building

45:06

a marketplace with factiva, and

45:08

deploying tools internally. But all

45:10

of that has to happen

45:12

in tandem with solving that

45:14

foundational question. So let me ask you.

45:16

Last summer, the deal with Open AI,

45:18

the reporting is that it's about $250 million.

45:21

Is that correct? Read the Wallster Journal. That's

45:23

the Wallster Journal site, so I believe them.

45:25

I had Nick Thompson, the CEO of the

45:28

Atlantic on the show a few months ago.

45:30

He told me one of the reasons that

45:32

he made a deal with Open AI was

45:34

to set the market rate, which is

45:37

useful for fair use litigation, which is

45:39

useful for other kinds of deals. Do

45:41

you think 250 million is enough of

45:43

a rate to set the market to

45:45

set the market? I mean, you got

45:47

to ask, I'm not going to talk

45:50

about specific amounts, but you got to

45:52

ask to what is that amount for.

45:54

And then what I am personally

45:57

less interested in is a single amount,

45:59

but more. an operating model and a

46:01

business model for how you do

46:03

business going forward over a long

46:05

period of time. How does that

46:07

operate? Is when information is used?

46:09

Is that the value of that

46:11

information recognized along the way? And

46:13

is there a mechanism that helps

46:15

realizing that valuation? Set the dollars

46:17

aside inside of the opening idea.

46:20

What are the signals you're looking

46:22

for that indicate whether the deal

46:24

was a success for a failure?

46:26

because of the way we've set

46:28

up that deal. I'm not going

46:30

to talk specifically about that deal. I

46:32

was a super nice try because I

46:34

almost bet. But I'm going to try

46:37

again. No, no, I'm sure you will.

46:39

But more broadly, I can say, so

46:41

how can you tell the generative AI

46:44

tools that you're deploying or models that

46:46

you're deploying within your own business? How

46:48

are they successful? That's by usage. and

46:50

is it generating revenue on a consistent

46:53

basis? Is it just a blurb? Like,

46:55

oh, it's a novelty factor and we

46:57

move on. We're pretty early in that

47:00

process, so I don't know yet what's

47:02

ahead fake, what's real. Some of the

47:04

products, I can tell this is real,

47:06

right? Some of it is a

47:08

shift in user experience and

47:10

in user requirements and... this is

47:13

going to have to be

47:15

table stakes, offer a UX

47:17

that is billed around generative

47:19

AI because the customer expects

47:22

that. So you're getting at

47:24

the trickiness of establishing the

47:26

value writ large. But overall,

47:28

I think of generative AI as

47:30

an accelerant for the strategy

47:32

that we have. It will

47:34

allow us to go deeper. in our

47:36

verticals faster and more efficiently and

47:39

in ways that we couldn't even

47:41

imagine and we've all talked about

47:44

the wonders of generative AI but

47:46

doing research in ways that we

47:48

couldn't do before human and otherwise

47:51

within Dow Jones we talk about

47:53

authentic intelligence that's the

47:56

combination of generative AI and

47:58

human guidance and we that

48:00

that's a sweet spot for

48:02

a certain B2B products that

48:04

we're building. So it's accelerating

48:06

going deeper. It will accelerate

48:09

going wider, i.e. scaling our

48:11

vertical strategy because we can

48:13

stand up verticals much faster,

48:15

whether that's a geographic vertical, because

48:18

now we can say. all right

48:20

we can launch in this language

48:22

and it's so reliable and it's

48:24

a lot cheaper and then connecting

48:26

everything is a massive generative AI

48:28

is a massive accelerant because now

48:30

with a thin layer on top

48:32

we can extract data from all

48:34

these different data do the tools

48:36

work well enough for you to trust

48:38

it on a case-by-case basis when

48:40

it's very specific and we are

48:42

answering a question from a customer

48:44

and it's often a co-creation where

48:47

we are solving a certain problem

48:49

and we have very narrow parameters.

48:51

Then I think it works. When

48:53

you go wide, you get a

48:55

wide answer. And so our strategy

48:57

is built around being specific,

48:59

being focused on verticals and AI

49:01

fits nicely with that. And in

49:04

fact, allows us to go much

49:06

deeper, be much more specific and

49:09

be more discerning. And so under

49:11

each vertical you can create subverticals

49:13

using a much larger data pool.

49:16

You're describing something that happens within

49:18

Dow Jones, within its products.

49:20

More broadly, News Corp has been

49:23

pretty harsh about platforms and

49:25

work. News Corp CEO Robert

49:27

Thompson, I think, famously is

49:29

critical of Google. The company

49:31

was behind the laws in

49:33

Australia that require platforms to

49:36

pay publishers for linking. AI

49:38

represents that opportunity as well or that

49:40

challenge as well, right? That instead of

49:43

using your tools, someone might use a

49:45

chat sheet BT or a Google Gemini

49:47

or something and just receive an answer.

49:49

Do you think that these deals you're

49:51

making, are they hedges against that

49:53

outcome? Are they investments in that

49:55

outcome? A lot of publishers, for example,

49:58

I'll just give the example. of

50:00

sort of the millennial digital media startup

50:02

boom were predicated on we will just

50:04

be the most viral thing on Facebook

50:07

and Facebook will pay us that money

50:09

and that obviously did not pan out

50:11

and I think people are very wary

50:13

of making that same mistake with AI

50:16

but you have one of these deals

50:18

so how are you? Yeah no but

50:20

this is why at the very start

50:23

I said I see those deals in

50:25

a separate category there it's foundational it's

50:27

about principles that what Our Gen A.I.

50:29

answer spits out is relevant

50:32

to our customer in a

50:34

way that some other provider

50:36

with maybe a more general offer

50:38

is not. And so we

50:41

have to make sure that

50:43

when we combine our proprietary

50:45

journalism and our proprietary data

50:48

and our convening power with

50:50

generative AI and with LLMs,

50:53

we have to make sure

50:55

that what the outcome is. to

50:57

a query is a reliable and b

50:59

is something that you can't find

51:02

as somewhere else or be at

51:04

the scale of where you can

51:06

find it somewhere else within that

51:08

vertical. So I think There's

51:10

a distinction between establishing the principles and

51:13

getting value for that, getting forward value

51:15

for if you are being used, but

51:17

then there is a separate category of

51:20

efficiency tools that we use in the

51:22

company and yet another category where we

51:24

say, here's where we build products that

51:26

have to answer a certain question that

51:29

exists in the market in any different

51:31

industry in our case. And we're going to

51:33

give a superior answer and you're

51:35

going to need that answer in

51:37

order to be more successful than

51:39

the next person working on solving

51:41

that problem in a certain industry.

51:43

So if that's about energy pricing

51:45

and forecasting energy prices, we want

51:47

to be the most reliable on

51:49

that or what's happening in the

51:51

chemical industry. We want to be

51:53

the leading voice in that and

51:56

generative AI should be one way

51:58

in which you get that out of us. in

52:00

a proprietary sense. And so that

52:02

should be hopefully very different than

52:04

going to any chat bot and

52:06

asking that same question. And maybe

52:08

you get an approximation, but it

52:11

might not be as reliable. But

52:13

hopefully there will be sufficient proprietary

52:15

data in our answer that will

52:17

make that competition uneven in our

52:19

advantage. And so that I think

52:21

is the task. I feel very

52:24

strongly that we cannot go in

52:26

to this new era with a

52:28

view of, well this is what

52:30

these companies have to do for

52:32

us. Like we have to agree

52:34

on the principles of the value,

52:37

but then it's really up to

52:39

us to create superb products and

52:41

answers to complex questions in a

52:43

very complex world. to realize the

52:45

value that these new tools offer.

52:47

And so both those things have

52:49

to exist. I've talked to a

52:52

lot of publishers and media CEOs

52:54

over the past several years about

52:56

where the traffic comes from, how

52:58

the payments work, where the value

53:00

is going, setting aside AI for

53:02

a minute. It feels like the

53:05

nuclear question everyone is asking is,

53:07

well, if Google is just indexing

53:09

our sites and taking the data,

53:11

eventually, we will have to block

53:13

Google. in a way that many

53:15

publishers were comfortable using their robots

53:18

file to block open AI and

53:20

other crawlers. Have you ever considered

53:22

going that far? Oh, I'm not

53:24

going to speak specifically to Google.

53:26

We're a partner and we have

53:28

lots of things that we do

53:31

together. There's also things that we

53:33

disagree on. News Corp. I think

53:35

famously the most outspoken in this

53:37

year. Yeah, no, no, no, absolutely.

53:39

So this is not on my

53:41

radar in the way that you

53:44

expressed that. That's the short answer

53:46

to that. I think, I guess

53:48

in taking your question in a

53:50

different way, we have to emphasize

53:52

O&O and we have to make.

53:54

sure that being in our world,

53:57

in our universe, in your individual

53:59

vertical or in one of our

54:01

broader products or in the entire

54:03

Rubik's Cube, you have an experience

54:05

that you cannot have somewhere else.

54:07

That's on us. How far do

54:10

you go in putting a wall

54:12

around that? Yeah, we'll see over

54:14

time. You are in litigation against

54:16

perplexity. They've taken some data. I

54:18

think you'd... don't like that. I'm

54:20

guessing by the fact the loss

54:23

it was filed. If you win

54:25

that case, or the New York

54:27

Times Company wins its case, or

54:29

I know Cheryl Crow wins her

54:31

case, that will upend the market

54:33

as we understand it, right? There

54:36

will be some new fair use

54:38

precedent that is created. How does

54:40

that change how you think about

54:42

building into playing your own AI

54:44

tools? Again, I put

54:46

this in a separate box. Like, we

54:49

got to build our... Well, let me

54:51

challenge you on that for one second,

54:53

just to get it into the right

54:55

framework. Right now, it feels like the

54:57

entire industry is just assuming that winter

54:59

lose these cases. The money will be

55:02

sort of outlabeled to build at the

55:04

same rate we've been building, right? Opening

55:06

out, well, maybe the winter lose. We're

55:08

gonna maybe the rates go up and

55:10

it's just more expensive through opening eyes

55:12

doing because they have to pay all

55:15

the singer songwriters in the world Maybe

55:17

it also seems to me that potentially

55:19

the rates are so high that the

55:21

entire structure of the industry changes So

55:23

the industry in this case aye Yeah,

55:26

yeah, yes, right like suddenly we have

55:28

to the compliance cost of making sure

55:30

all of our data is licensed before

55:32

we feed it into the model for

55:34

training Skyrockets because the penalties are high

55:36

under copyright law that It feels like

55:39

an under-considered risk. These lawsuits are just

55:41

going to play out, and something will

55:43

happen. The way that I think Google

55:45

was able to roll over the Viacom

55:47

lawsuit when YouTube started, or the Google

55:50

Books lawsuit, because they were sort of

55:52

the plucky upstart, and the value of

55:54

those tools was so high, that they

55:56

got to win a bunch of lawsuits.

55:58

I don't think the AI companies feel

56:00

like plucky up. starts. I don't think

56:03

that public sentiment is with a bunch

56:05

of giant tech company billionaires anymore. It

56:07

feels like those lawsuits might go the

56:09

other way. And at that point, some

56:11

of the tools you are using to

56:13

build with or some of the partners

56:16

you have, their cost structures might change

56:18

so dramatically. That is going to stop

56:20

us from... Yeah, that everyone's strategy has

56:22

to change. And I'm just wondering how

56:24

much you are considering that. I see

56:27

where you're going with it. I think

56:29

the answer to the individual cases, it's

56:31

a... a little bit the blind man

56:33

and the elephant. There are different patches

56:35

of fair use that different legal cases

56:37

are pursuing. One case is not going

56:40

to, it might reverberate, but it's not

56:42

going to be necessarily absolute. And so

56:44

I hate to say this as an

56:46

answer to any question, but there is

56:48

a... a big wait and see. At

56:50

the moment, I got to go on

56:53

the assumption that as a technology, generative

56:55

AI is present in my world, is

56:57

going to be present even more, is

56:59

going to be present, and an expectation

57:01

from consumers, whether they're corporate or consumers,

57:04

out in the wild. And so we

57:06

cannot continue to build and then think

57:08

at the same time, like, oh, it

57:10

may all just disappear, and by the

57:12

way, we might be the culprit because

57:14

we're applying that, which is an interesting.

57:17

scenario. I don't think it will play

57:19

out that way, but you're one of

57:21

the litigants. That's what I mean. It's

57:23

interesting because you are... But I don't

57:25

know that it will be debilitating. I

57:27

don't think that the commercial agreement that

57:30

we have with Open AI, the value

57:32

of which I can say, but you

57:34

just cited that, that has obviously not

57:36

stopped Open AI from developing. And so

57:38

I believe in a market mechanism, and

57:41

I think that's where we'll end up

57:43

that there will be a gravitation to

57:45

that, rather than stopping the industry in

57:47

its tracks. Opening I famously has not

57:49

made one dollar in profit. That's the

57:51

thing that I, it's right, they have

57:54

to build a business that's valuable not

57:56

to support deals. Yeah, but Amazon didn't

57:58

for a long time either. I feel like

58:00

we've brought up Jeff Bezos in a

58:03

variety of ways on this. I'm very

58:05

curious to see how your lawsuit plays

58:07

out with perplexity and how those businesses

58:09

develop will have to have you back

58:12

as that progresses because there's something there

58:14

that feels it's almost invisible by men

58:16

in the elephant. It's there. It's very

58:19

big, and I think this next year

58:21

we'll see how it shapes the business.

58:23

I want to end by talking about

58:25

press freedom. It's something you care about

58:27

a lot. You've talked about it a

58:29

lot. Obviously, you're the publisher of the

58:31

Wall Street Journal. You famously had Evan

58:33

Gerschkovich detained in Russia in March 2023.

58:35

You worked very hard across a number

58:38

of administrations to bring him back. This

58:40

is a very challenging time for press

58:42

freedom both abroad and it feels like

58:44

in the United States. What's your

58:46

view of the landscape right

58:48

now? of polarization and that

58:50

makes covering the news trickier

58:53

than ever before, but

58:55

also I think increases

58:57

the value and the

58:59

contribution that we bring

59:01

to society as a

59:03

free press. And so on

59:05

the one hand, with

59:07

all the changes that

59:09

we're seeing, including against

59:11

media, this is a time

59:13

that any journalist should be made

59:15

for. Right, if your heart is

59:18

in explaining complexity to the world,

59:20

there's never been a time when

59:22

we've had this to grapple with.

59:25

And so I think on one

59:27

hand, we can offer enormous value.

59:29

On the other hand, it's become

59:32

a lot harder to do that.

59:34

And the statistics around the world

59:36

don't lie. There are well over

59:38

300 people who were killed last

59:41

year doing journalism. been put

59:43

in prison and there

59:45

is a harsh dialogue

59:47

in society that makes

59:49

it under many circumstances

59:52

less comfortable to go

59:54

after a story. Sometimes

59:56

I measure whether we

59:58

did a story. very well

1:00:00

by how much I got in

1:00:02

terms of complaints from the left

1:00:04

and from the right after certain

1:00:06

stories. And so the temperature is

1:00:09

high. But let me push

1:00:11

you on that too. Yes, please.

1:00:13

That is, that's an old chestnut

1:00:15

in journalism, right? If everyone's unhappy,

1:00:17

you're doing your job right. We're

1:00:19

in a place... Well, it's also

1:00:21

like my daily existence, honestly. Right.

1:00:23

So that is, it's a very

1:00:25

young chestnut for me. I mean,

1:00:27

it's there every day. But yes,

1:00:29

I know where you want to

1:00:31

go. This is a pretty asymmetric

1:00:33

information landscape right now. One side

1:00:35

is vastly more willing to lie.

1:00:37

One side is vastly more willing

1:00:40

to even change the data. The Trump

1:00:42

administration is making noise that they'll take

1:00:44

government spending out of GDP, which would

1:00:46

dramatically change almost everything the Wall Street

1:00:48

Journal does, right? At the most fundamental

1:00:50

level, we might not be able to

1:00:52

trust the government data anymore. That's

1:00:55

a threat to press freedom. At the same time, they

1:00:57

will spin it as a good thing. Elon Musk is

1:00:59

out there trying to spin this as a good thing. You

1:01:02

don't see the left playing that kind

1:01:04

of game with the data in

1:01:06

that way to sort of metaphysically create

1:01:08

political outcomes, right?

1:01:11

There's not as much trying to

1:01:13

tweet things into reality that Elon

1:01:15

is doing. So I'm not going to

1:01:17

left -right things in this conversation. What

1:01:20

I can say is how do

1:01:22

you respond to an information

1:01:24

ecosystem or maybe in an asymmetrical

1:01:26

manner? I'm saying how do

1:01:28

you respond to an information ecosystem

1:01:30

where Donald Trump has threatened to

1:01:32

sue pollsters in Iowa that he

1:01:34

didn't like the results of their

1:01:36

poll? Or where Brendan Carr, the

1:01:38

chairman of the FCC, is potentially holding

1:01:41

up the CBS

1:01:43

Skydance merger over his

1:01:45

investigation of 60 minutes editorial content.

1:01:47

Yeah. So it's a very clear

1:01:49

answer, I think, to that.

1:01:51

It's not an easy answer, but

1:01:53

the first answer is stick to

1:01:56

your principles. In our case, we

1:01:58

believe in reporting the fact. in

1:02:00

the newsroom, we believe, in free markets

1:02:02

and free people on the opinion side.

1:02:04

And you stick to that, and you

1:02:06

do not let go. All right? And

1:02:08

you double down on that. And

1:02:10

that's our contribution to the information

1:02:13

ecosystem. And we're going to do

1:02:15

more of that. And by the

1:02:17

way, that's a demand-driven thing as

1:02:20

well. But we're talking about press

1:02:22

freedom. This is an answer to

1:02:24

that. You're not going to change

1:02:27

your reporting. If you start doing

1:02:29

your reporting. and omitting facts that

1:02:31

you know to be true or

1:02:34

start self-censoring, then that game is

1:02:36

lost. You have. That's one. Okay.

1:02:38

Second, you got to keep

1:02:40

a cool head. We

1:02:42

live in an environment

1:02:44

where taunting and provocation

1:02:46

is the norm. And

1:02:48

so you can take that bait

1:02:51

or you cannot. And you

1:02:53

have to then, in my

1:02:55

view, not be... hysterical in

1:02:57

response to every little provocation

1:03:00

that might exist. And in

1:03:02

fact, you might get more respect

1:03:04

if you do not respond to

1:03:06

every provocation. And then you have

1:03:08

to recognize the moments when

1:03:10

principles are at stake, when

1:03:13

you have to fight or

1:03:15

you have to express your

1:03:17

disagreement. And so keep on doing

1:03:19

what you're doing. Do even more

1:03:21

of it in our case reliable

1:03:23

create reliable information. It's going to

1:03:25

be it's going to be good

1:03:28

for society It's going to be good

1:03:30

for you as an organization Keep

1:03:32

a cool head and stick to

1:03:34

your principles and that last part

1:03:36

is also non-negotiable non-negotiable all these

1:03:38

three of fact non-negotiable You've got

1:03:40

to stick to your principles. If

1:03:43

you start shifting and making certain

1:03:45

concessions at the wrong moment, there

1:03:47

will be a very high price

1:03:50

to pay for that. You have

1:03:52

colleagues in similar positions across the

1:03:55

media that are making concessions,

1:03:57

right? A. B. C. Settled its case

1:03:59

with the. Trump administration, CBS looks like

1:04:01

they might settle the 60 minutes case

1:04:04

because the threat of the Skydance deal

1:04:06

being blocked in some way hangs over

1:04:08

them. Are you saying you would not

1:04:11

make those concessions? Are you saying they

1:04:13

should not? I'm not saying either one

1:04:15

of those because I'm not commenting on

1:04:18

their individual situation. I just think that

1:04:20

there are moments where as an organization

1:04:22

you're going to have to evaluate and

1:04:25

the AP just went through this, is

1:04:27

this a moment where I speak out

1:04:29

and where I stick to my guns

1:04:32

or not? And I think those moments,

1:04:34

you better choose carefully, you better have

1:04:36

a clear view of your principles and

1:04:38

understand what you actually stand for and

1:04:41

understand the ramifications because people will point

1:04:43

back to certain moments and you want

1:04:45

to make sure that you're on the

1:04:48

right side of that. No, I'm going

1:04:50

to ask you this one directly because

1:04:52

I think I just need to hear

1:04:55

it therapeutically, but I think your reporters

1:04:57

probably need to hear it too. If

1:04:59

the pressure comes to you from the

1:05:02

Trump administration, are you saying that you'll

1:05:04

fight in a way that it feels

1:05:06

like a lot of other big media

1:05:09

companies are choosing to cave? I think

1:05:11

the question is just to load it

1:05:13

and that you make it very specific.

1:05:16

I think we have fought for our

1:05:18

principles for decades. We have stood up

1:05:20

for reporting for decades. We have a

1:05:23

legal team that is incredibly strong, that

1:05:25

has fought for press freedom and for

1:05:27

our journalism again and again. If we

1:05:30

make a mistake, we correct. We own

1:05:32

up to that and that is absolutely

1:05:34

part of the value structure. We stand

1:05:37

up for principles, period. What happens if

1:05:39

the generative AI makes a mistake? Depends

1:05:41

on what? mistake it is. And so

1:05:44

we actually in building and co-creating some

1:05:46

of these products that answer very narrow

1:05:48

questions, we were sometimes surprised at mistakes

1:05:51

that snuck in and we just wanted

1:05:53

to make sure that we can't release

1:05:55

products without having screened for that. But

1:05:57

you're going to have to correct. Do

1:06:00

you think that that information environment

1:06:02

where some of the tools are less

1:06:04

reliable and some of the institutions

1:06:07

are less reliable or perhaps even

1:06:09

openly hostile to the press? Do

1:06:11

you think that's something that you will

1:06:13

be able to chart as Dow Jones

1:06:15

alone or do you think that's an

1:06:18

industry-wide effort? Because it does not feel

1:06:20

like there's a lot of coordination

1:06:22

across the industry right now. I

1:06:24

think the industry should shoulder a

1:06:27

lot of this together in a

1:06:29

loosely formed... coalition or through solidarity.

1:06:31

But I'm focused on Dow Jones'

1:06:34

success, but I certainly share, and

1:06:36

on our values, but I certainly

1:06:38

share. our findings with colleagues all

1:06:40

the time and there's a very

1:06:43

active dialogue amongst media leaders that

1:06:45

A. I want to foster and

1:06:47

be I participate in and so

1:06:50

if you look at very difficult

1:06:52

moments like the Evan case or

1:06:54

getting people out of Afghanistan during

1:06:56

the rapid withdrawal from US forces

1:06:58

there we worked very very closely

1:07:00

together there's very close contacts among

1:07:02

amongst a lot of those leaders.

1:07:05

I think that's a healthy thing

1:07:07

and I would like to see

1:07:09

more of it. Well, Amara, are you

1:07:11

doing us so much time? Tell us what's

1:07:13

next for Dowgens. Well, there's tomorrow's news,

1:07:15

so I want you to tune

1:07:17

in, and so definitely come to

1:07:20

the Wall Street Journal every day.

1:07:22

But for us, you'll see us

1:07:24

focus on international rebalancing, rebalancing our

1:07:26

portfolio to make sure that we

1:07:28

are as strong outside the borders

1:07:30

of the US as we are

1:07:32

here, focused on video, focused on

1:07:34

deeper data products. But overall... We

1:07:37

will continue to be focused on

1:07:39

what we have been focused on

1:07:41

for the entirety of our existence

1:07:43

and that's providing reliable information. Amazing.

1:07:45

Thank you so much for being on

1:07:47

Dakota. Thank you so much for having

1:07:49

me. Other thing, Allmar, for taking the time

1:07:51

to join me on Dakota, and thank you for

1:07:54

listening. I hope you enjoyed it. If you like

1:07:56

to let us know, we thought about this episode

1:07:58

or really anything else, drop us the line. can

1:08:00

email us at decoder at the

1:08:02

verge.com. We really do read all

1:08:05

the emails. You can also add

1:08:07

me up directly on threads or

1:08:09

Blue Sky, and we have a

1:08:12

Tiktok and an Instagram now. They're

1:08:14

both at Decoder pod. They're a

1:08:16

lot of fun. If you like

1:08:19

Decoder, please share it with your

1:08:21

friends and subscribe wherever you

1:08:23

get podcasts. Decoder is

1:08:25

a great master cylinder.

1:08:27

We'll see you next time.

1:08:30

Now in its sixth year,

1:08:32

the Alex Partners Disruption Index

1:08:34

explores what the best performing

1:08:37

and fastest growing companies are

1:08:39

doing differently, as they anticipate,

1:08:42

shape, and respond to disruption.

1:08:44

How are the world's top

1:08:46

leaders identifying ways to integrate

1:08:49

AI into their businesses? Learn

1:08:51

more on the latest tech

1:08:54

insights at disruption. Alex partners.com.

1:08:56

Disruption. Alix partners.com. to get

1:08:59

straight to the point and

1:09:01

deliver results when it really

1:09:03

matters. You understand tech. You

1:09:05

already use a VPN, a

1:09:07

password manager, and an ad

1:09:09

blocker. Surely you are not

1:09:11

exposed. Right? Find out for

1:09:13

sure by going to cloaked.com/VOS.

1:09:15

That's c-l-o-a-k-e-d.com/V-O-X. There you can

1:09:18

plug in your phone number

1:09:20

to see if any of

1:09:22

your personal information is vulnerable.

1:09:24

Cloked can help you get

1:09:26

your data removed from hundreds

1:09:28

of data brokers, generate unlimited

1:09:30

working phone numbers to protect

1:09:32

your real one, and also offers

1:09:34

$1 million insurance against identity theft.

1:09:37

That's cloked.com/Vox, and check out with

1:09:39

Code Podcast to get 30% off

1:09:41

a Cloke subscription. Today

1:09:46

at T-Mobile I'm joined by a

1:09:49

special co-anchor. What up everybody? It's

1:09:51

your boy, Big Snope deal, double

1:09:53

sheet. Snoop! Where can people go

1:09:55

to find great deals? Hand to

1:09:58

t-mobile.com to get four iPhone 16s

1:10:00

with Apple intelligence on us. Plus

1:10:02

four lines plus four lines for

1:10:04

Apple intelligence on us. Plus four

1:10:06

lines for 25. That's four lines

1:10:09

for Apple intelligence, with

1:10:11

Apple Intelligence, with Apple

1:10:13

intelligence, requires IOS 18.1

1:10:15

or later.