Comments on: Wall Street Journal Will Likely Dump Paid Service

By: Ad supported video more profitable than paid downloads - New Comm Biz - New media strategies for business

Tue, 27 Nov 2007 18:49:31 +0000

[...] to put up with advertising in order to get their media for free. In fact, just like many online news companies are taking down their subscription based business models in favor of ad supported models, the Forrester reports claim that ad [...]

By: Ash

Ash — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 20:27:44 +0000

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.

By: iMarketingGuru (SEO Wiki)

iMarketingGuru (SEO Wiki) — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 18:07:36 +0000

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.

By: Dominin

Dominin — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:02:37 +0000

@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 !!

By: chrisco

chrisco — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 13:57:38 +0000

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.

By: Ed

Ed — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 13:16:45 +0000

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?

By: David Litsky

David Litsky — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:40:04 +0000

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.

By: latestnews

latestnews — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:34:26 +0000

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 .

By: Abhishek

Abhishek — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:16:26 +0000

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/

By: Don Wilson

Don Wilson — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 23:27:15 +0000

Bryan, like Business 2.0 did a week or so ago?

By: Don Jones

Don Jones — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 23:08:04 +0000

I expect and hope this happens. WSJ will get far more ad dollars than subscriber revs.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 23:00:32 +0000

And one by one, they fall.

Anyone else waiting for the The Economist to fall? I say within 6 months.

By: Ian

Ian — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 22:55:27 +0000

I hope this pans out… I’d like to read the full WSJ content for free.

By: viralmythen

viralmythen — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 22:29:47 +0000

Das Ende des Web 1.0: New York Times jetzt wieder kostenlos…

Als die Zeitungsverlage ihre Webpräsenzen immer weiter ausbauten, bis schließlich ihr gesamter Content auch im Internet abgerufen konnte, wurde die Frage nach dem Geschäftsmodell dringlich. Zahlreiche Verlage haben sich dazu entschlossen…

By: wayne lambright

wayne lambright — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 22:14:48 +0000

You can get the WSJ delivered for $99 per year, and it come with the free online membership. Which I never use.

By: Word Hugger

Word Hugger — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:42:26 +0000

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.