News Corp head Rupert Murdoch has said that he was “leaning toward” making the online Wall Street Journal free, but had not yet made a formal decision.
The news comes after the New York Times dumped their pay-for-view service Monday.
The Wall Street Journal currently charges $99 per year for full access to all content at wsj.com
Murdoch rejected criticism that a free wsj.com would hurt the newspaper, saying that making the site available free would help boost viewership and revenue globally… ‘If you make it free, it will hurt the paper’ — I don’t think so,”
(via Reuters)
I don’t think I would pay the current $99/year, but if its a free newsletter, I would sign up. I think it would help WSJ a lot more, rather than hurting it.
You can get the WSJ delivered for $99 per year, and it come with the free online membership. Which I never use.
I hope this pans out… I’d like to read the full WSJ content for free.
And one by one, they fall.
Anyone else waiting for the The Economist to fall? I say within 6 months.
I expect and hope this happens. WSJ will get far more ad dollars than subscriber revs.
Bryan, like Business 2.0 did a week or so ago?
Yep this was going to happen.
I think that is a positive move and will be better for WSJ in general. They only have 1M customers on the plan.
With free model they can get lot more and monetize using the ad model. See my analysis from early august.
http://abhishek...-makeover-time/
I think this is the good move now on internet everything is free , before 7 to 10 years we get e-mail box around 2 MB Now we get more then 2 GB WOW, So this move is must .
Free or not, Murdoch needs to ensure that the quality of the paper doesn’t decline. I am curious how making WSJOnline free will effect subscribership.
Almost anyone can get the WSJ for free with a library account. Most libraries subscribe to various periodicals which their clients can view online.
Also, I wonder the final result will be for WSJ. Don’t they have the largest number of online for-pay subscribers?
That’s good… b/c I am not renewing my online WSJ subscription when it expires. Only online and only free / ad-supported for me. Better for the environment too. And higher margins for publishers. Win / win / win.
@Chrisco
better for the environment eh? You can sit and read the WSJ on line while you sip your bottled water from that plastic bottle that will take a nuclear blast to destroy !!
Wow — look at this trend, the NYTimes, WSJ, Business 2.0, possibly Forbes? And the list just keeps on growing. Murdoch is one smart man — ad revenue is king and the eyes and actions of the huge viewership will make or break ad dollars.
Given that our site, Congoo.com provides free access to articles from sites such as WSJ.com, and FT.com, we have watched this space very closely. Back in 2000, we witnessed CPM’s drop by about 90% when the ad market softened. I wonder if that can happen again, and, if so, how Mr. Murdoch would feel about letting all that subscription revenue go. McClatchy reporting decreased online revenues today was certainly a concern.