Reports versus Rumors versus Research
Posted: January 3, 2018 Filed under: Comments on the News | Tags: Amazon, com, CVS, LinkedIn
January 3, 2018
The December 2017 issue of Fortune discussed rumors and reports about what Amazon might buy – evidently an endless subject – including a “possible health care play” as indicated by “reports that the company was hiring people with pharmacy backgrounds”.
So? If it is potentially important to you, good CI practice demands that you check this out and not just rely on this piece as “fact”. Remember, it is a report of speculation included in an article mentioning rumors. Sounds less great, no? It is not the reporter’s fault – he is laying it out, and quite fairly. It is still up to you to take it further.
How? Think about where the data that supports or undercuts this hypothesis might be found. For example, try using LinkedIn.com to see who is now working at Amazon who used to work at say, CVS. Now see if they are
- recent hires or hires more than a year or so ago?
- coming with experience or skills that are not easily transferable to Amazon’s existing businesses or are they bringing easily transferable skills and more generic management expertise?
- are they now located in one area or are they distributed throughout the US?
That is the difference, taking it further.
 Jonathan Vanian, “Best Bogeyman: Amazon”, Fortune, Dec. 15, 2017, p 24.