Is STRATFOR Worth it?

[Jedburgh]

This is what I had to say about STRATFOR on the board almost a decade ago:

StratFor is George Friedman, his wife and a very small permanent core staff (not one of whom has an intel background) who churn out high quantities of journalistic reporting posing as "analylsis". The bulk of the work is done by university student interns. In my personal opinion, most of their international product is crap - what little there is of value to be found among the outpouring is readily available elsewhere. And where StratFor charges for access to much of their product, you can find much better (and real analysis, not journalism and commentary) for free elsewhere.

They haven't improved with time, but the range of quality information you can access for free has expanded greatly.

[Bill Moore]

This is what I had to say about STRATFOR on the board almost a decade ago:

They haven't improved with time, but the range of quality information you can access for free has expanded greatly.

Tend to agree, I subscribed for a year or so, but it didn't take long to realize their so called analysis was almost always wrong. It was always entertaining though, which is probably why it has survived so long.

[nertz]

It's not necessarily bad, but there's better money elsewhere.

There are definitely other sources of analysis which are as-good or better, and don't expect cash from you - I definitely wouldn't have used stratfor in the past if my university didn't have a subscription. As a source of international news it isn't worth it, and its emailed "briefing" thingies weren't helpful. Other services - and think tanks - give email news/analysis roundups out for free, and those are usually better.

As for the differences between it and other sources - Stratfor (usually) costs more, and presents itself as an "intelligence-y" resource. I'd place it somewhere near The Economist in terms of breadth.