Talk:Informa

Headquarters

Its Head Office is in London, but the Headquarters is in Switzerland? Either one of those must be wrong. 61.14.175.114 (talk) 09:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Alright. I read a bit more and it appears that it moved to Switzerland to order to avoid British tax. So I guess whilst the head office is in London, it is registered in Switzerland for tax purposes.61.14.175.114 (talk) 09:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Untitled

Added advertising tag, Article needs to assert company notability more per WP:CORP. Article also needs references. -- Librarianofages 01:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No merger Lloyd's List

I do not see any improvement in merging this article with Lloyd's List, as is suggested. The paper is in itself enough to have an article, and the current article has enough merits to stay apart. DePiep (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree, removing merge tag. Joshdboz (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

=== Merge the page-- There is no value-ad to having this page. It should be merged with the larger Informa Wiki. The last update was in March 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.111.137.227 (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Datamonitor et al

As an employee of Datamonitor I can't understand why it is that Taylor Francis is entitled to its own page but Datamonitor is not. Or for that matter why any of Informa's subsidiaries are entitled to their own page or not as the case may be? Wikipedia is the first source of information for many people and it would in my opinion make sense either for the larger subsidiaries to have their own articles or for them to have expanded sections within the Informa article. Wikipediatastic (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the difference between....

this org and the one of following Informa Healthcare http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=t713425816 --222.67.207.79 (talk) 10:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No difference at all. Informa Healthcare is part of Informa. Wikipediatastic (talk) 12:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

New headquarters

Informa has a new registered office and head office address:

Informa PLC 5 Howick Place London SW1P 1WG UK

Please reflect the change in the sidebar and the opening paragraph. I work for the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpomph (talk • contribs) 10:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Divisions

Informa has undergone a restructure and has the following divisions:

Academic Publishing Business Intelligence Global Exhibitions Knowledge and Networking

Please update in the Division section of the sidebar, and the Operations section. I work for Informa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpomph (talk • contribs) 10:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Informa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090223191107/http://www.lloydslist.com:80/ll/home/about.htm to http://www.lloydslist.com/ll/home/about.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

"Supermarket News" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Supermarket News. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 2#Supermarket News until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

"Inside Self-Storage" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Inside Self-Storage. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 2#Inside Self-Storage until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

"10.2989" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 10.2989. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 8#10.2989 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Article Lead Request

Hello there,

I am acting on behalf of Informa and have some suggested changes to the lead.

What are my changes: The current first sentence of the lead does not accurately reflect what Informa does, so I have suggested a more accurate version.

In addition, can the introduction feature the operating divisions rather than examples of the notable brands owned by Informa?

This would help readers better understand the structure of the company - while the brands are notable, they don't illustrate what Informa does as a company. Listing the divisions also more accurately indicates the nature of the relationship between Informa's divisions and brands - Taylor & Francis for example is its own division which CRC Press and Routledge both sit within, but the current phrasing implies they sit alongside each other.

I plan to suggest some more content in the body of the article to better cover what each division does and use notable examples of brands within each to clarify this, but for this request I'm focusing on the introduction.

Finally, can the number of employees be updated to 14,000 (and the relevant figure corrected within the infobox)?

How it would appear:

Proposed Changes

Informa plc is a British publishing, business intelligence, and exhibitions group based in London, England. UK-founded multinational events, digital products, specialist media and academic publishing business. It is listed on the London Stock Exchange and is a constituent of the FTSE 100 Index. One of the world's largest business events' organisers, it has offices in 30 countries and around 12,000 14,000 employees. Informa owns numerous brands including Fan Expo, VidCon, Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity, CRC Press, Routledge, and Taylor & Francis. Informa comprises five operating divisions: Informa Markets, Informa Connect, Informa Festivals, Informa TechTarget and Taylor & Francis. References

Thanks in advance! HisNamesJim (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: A majority of the requested changes are currently written in a promotional tone. Please review WP:Neutral point of view and ensure you follow this before submitting any edit requests. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 01:13, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Valorrr for your feedback. Would you please mind indicating the language you feel in my request which is written in a promotional tone? HisNamesJim (talk) 09:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

One of the world's largest business events' organisers, along with some others. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 13:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Valorrr. I understand that that could seem promotional but I disagree in cases where it is an objective statement.

Objectively, Informa is one of the world's largest companies in the organisation of business events' - this is supported by the Times article where it says: "Informa, formed in 1998 via the merger of IBC Group and Lloyd’s of London Press, is the largest organiser of trade shows in the world."

Other Wikipedia articles where the subject is the largest within their specific industry will also use "largest" within the article lead as a basic introduction to the subject i.e. airlines (American Airlines) - "largest airline in the world in terms of passengers carried and daily flights", banking (Goldman Sachs) - "second-largest investment bank in the world by revenue".

I appreciate I do have a COI so would you mind reopening the request so we could get a second opinion? I see that Pac Veten and Dormskirk have recently been active with updates to the article - would either of you have an opinion on my suggestions?

HisNamesJim (talk) 16:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry but "One of the world's largest business events' organisers, along with some others" sounds promotional to me. Dormskirk (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Very, and we need NPOV. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 16:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

One of the world's largest business events' organisers
That was the text, but I said "among some others" to state there is some more. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 16:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

The tone sounds promotional to me also. Is there a way to quantify the statement for neutrality? For example, "Informa has x% of the global market for trade shows" or "Informa is among the top Y international vendors for trade shows"? Pac Veten (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Or better, "Informa is among the top Y international vendors for trade shows (by revenue)." Pac Veten (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Valorrr, Dormskirk and Pac Veten for your feedback. Very helpful for someone new to Wikipedia.

Pac Veten, as you have suggested, could the phrasing be altered to:

"Informa is the world's largest exhibition organizer by revenue..." as supported by these Exhibition News and Trade Shows New Network articles.

Additionally, what about other parts of the request? Are the changes suggested acceptable or does the language have to be adjusted?

1. Changes to the "lead" sentence to better reflect what Informa does.

2. Changing the last sentence to feature the operating divisions of Informa rather than examples of the notable brands owned by Informa.

Listing the divisions more accurately indicates the nature of the relationship between Informa's divisions and brands - Taylor & Francis for example is its own division which CRC Press and Routledge are brands within, but the current phrasing implies they sit alongside each other.

3. Updating the number of employees to 14,000.

Thanks again for your guidance. HisNamesJim (talk) 11:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I found the original lead sentence (with "business intelligence") more concrete and descriptive. The proposed new sentence may fit better with a corporate mission statement, but the context seems different here. Perhaps it would work to add an explicit sentence for the mission statement?

Similarly, the original list of brands (including CRC) seems helpful and evocative, while the list of divisions lacks flavor for a general audience, somehow. Why not include both--keep the original content, and then add a new description of Informa's operating divisions separately? Each list would provide a different kind of useful information. Pac Veten (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Article Lead Request 2

Hello there,

Following the feedback received from Pac Veten, I have reposted my request to change the article lead to make it clearer for interested editors.

• Would it be possible to add phrasing to the second paragraph of the introduction which indicates Informa is the world's largest exhibition organizer by revenue, one of the reasons why the company is notable within its industry.

• Can I suggest a sentence outlining the operating divisions of the company. This would make the introduction a better summary of the company and help clarify the relationship between Informa's divisions and brands.

• Can the introduction be updated to reflect Informa's current business operations, specifically as follows:

• By using the term "UK-founded" rather than "British", and "Multinational events" to clarify that the company hosts functions globally, not only domestically.

• Informa no longer offers "business intelligence" services while "digital products", "specialist media" and "academic publishing business" represent the company's current operations more accurately. Informa, for example, is only involved with "academic publishing" rather than "publishing" generally through its Taylor & Francis division.

• Finally, can the number of employees be updated to 14,000 (and the relevant figure corrected within the infobox).

How it would appear:

Proposed Changes

Informa plc is a British publishing, business intelligence, and exhibitions group based in London, England. UK-founded multinational events, digital products, specialist media and academic publishing business. It is listed on the London Stock Exchange and is a constituent of the FTSE 100 Index. Informa is the world's largest exhibition organizer by revenue. It has offices in 30 countries and around 12,000 14,000 employees. Informa owns numerous brands including Fan Expo, VidCon, Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity, CRC Press, Routledge, and Taylor & Francis. Informa comprises five operating divisions: Informa Markets, Informa Connect, Informa Festivals, Informa TechTarget and Taylor & Francis. References

Thank you again for considering my request! HisNamesJim (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

This draft looks more neutral, to my eye, but some additional changes would be helpful:

- Where the company was founded is less important than what it does; the company is something like a conglomerate; and bold font is needed only for the company name. So I would suggest something like this for the first sentence, pending further changes: "Informa plc is a multinational conglomerate that is active in the areas of events, digital products, specialist media and academic publishing; the company was founded in the UK."

- The terms "digital products" and "specialist media" do not refer to concrete industries or fields that would be familiar to most readers. What are possible substitutes for these terms, which would be more widely known?

- Do the terms "events" and "exhibitions" refer to the same things? If so, it may be helpful to use a consistent term.

- Where are Informa's major offices located? For example, would "in the London and Boston areas" be sufficient to give a general idea?

- How many brands does Informa have? The word "numerous" implies between 8 and dozens . . .

- What does each Informa division do, in a few words each?

Hopefully these are useful comments, if detailed. Pac Veten (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Similarly, if the 14,000 employees are located mainly in the US and the UK, it would be useful to include that clarification. Pac Veten (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Pac Veten. Sorry for taking a while to get back to you.

I very much appreciate your detailed comments, which I've responded to in turn below. Just to clarify, I use bold to indicate my changes which I should have made clearer to you so apologies for any confusion!

1. I agree with your adjusted lead sentence. I suggest using the alternate term digital goods instead of "digital products" and "niche media" instead of "specialist media". Similar to my point regarding the alteration from "publishing" to "academic publishing", I feel it is important to readers to clarify that Informa does not publish mainstream media.

2. Events and exhibitions from my understanding are different, so it would be better to specify given their relevance here. Events are broader while exhibitions are more focused and subject-specific; for example the wider event of Cannes Film Festival will host exhibitions within the wider event itself.

3. For the lead at least, I do not see the value in adding where the company's major offices are located and it probably approaches WP:DIRECTORY territory, but others may disagree.

4. Informa does indeed have dozens of brands, too many to comprehensively list and this may fluctuate over time as well (I would like to tackle the brands section in a future request so it isn't too unwieldy), and this is why I'm keen to include the Divisions. I would not object to the beginning of this sentence being altered to read, "Some of Informa's most notable brands include..."

5. I am currently in the process of drafting changes to the "Operations" section which it would be great if you would like to offer your feedback on once I have submitted it! This will include an explanation of the five divisions - it might be appropriate to include this in the lead as well but in any case we can decide that once this first conversation is concluded to keep the Talk page organised.

6. I cannot find any independent reliable third-party references which include the employee split and would rather leave it out as this will continually change.

Look forward to hearing your feedback and thank you! HisNamesJim (talk) 16:55, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @HisNamesJim. I appreciate your latest thoughts--my comments are below.

1. The phrase "digital goods" is not standard for a general audience, so I think that it's still important to find common words to describe Informa's services. Such phrasing should be independent of any marketing strategy.

2. OK

3. Most Wikipedia articles about important companies indicate where their major offices are located. This information should be included for Informa as well.

4. It would be appropriate to replace the promotional word "numerous" with an approximate quantification of the number of brands that Informa owns. On the basis of your comments above, perhaps that would be "approximately fifty" in this case?

5. There are two options around treating divisions in the lead section. The first option is to attach a couple of words to each division as description; the second option is to remove the divisions from the lead section entirely, deferring this material for a later section, as you proposed. The current division listing in the lead section is opaque and does not add any value for a reader.

6. OK--item 3 above may be sufficient to substitute for item 6 here.

Hopefully these comments are useful in moving towards the next iteration. Pac Veten (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)