Comments on: Murdoch Serious About Tearing Down WSJ.com’s Subscription Wall

By: Overskrifts underskrift » Aviser online: abonnement eller annonce-betalt?

Overskrifts underskrift » Aviser online: abonnement eller annonce-betalt? — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:28:20 +0000

[...] har bl.a. Dorte Toft, Kim Elmose og Journalisten ogs� lagt m�rke til �ndringen hos WSJ. P� TechCrunch har de regnet lidt p� tallene og at i stedet for 1 million betalende brugere, kan der nok hives omkring 60 mill. USD hjem om �ret [...]

By: Final Word On WSJ.com: More Free Content, But Subscriptions To Remain, Likely To Cost More

Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:03:57 +0000

[...] Murdoch has said that the Wall Street Journal online will retain a paid subscription model, despite months of speculation that the site would go completely [...]

By: Dan

Dan — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 19:38:51 +0000

I do not want wsj.com to be free. I do not want to be barraged by ads when trying to read and think about the articles and data in the wsj. I already detect an increase in ads in the print version. If the website is made free, the ads will increase and become the focus at the expense of the great journalism of the wsj. I hope this doesn’t come to pass, but I am not sentimental and will drop my subscriptions if it gets bad. That would be a very sad day.

By: dave platter

dave platter — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 23:25:26 +0000

I think worries about the decline of print subscriptions are valid. But, Murdoch’s team must be thinking of the same. There’s no reason to expect them to leave the print edition unchanged.

I imagine they have plans for revising the print edition to take best advantage of the medium, even as they evolve the web edition. What does that mean? I’m no expert. Does any one have any ideas?

By: rfre

rfre — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 02:28:41 +0000

@24

“News sites actually have a pretty tough time selling ads on various topics. Not many advertisers would like to see their message next to the latest terrorist bomb blast or corruption lawsuit.”

If the ads are targeted to the person’s interests and demographics, it doesn’t matter what the content is surrounding the ad. WSJ has some pretty advanced behavioral targeting capabilities that would make a $50+ CPM worthwhile for a lot of higher-end clients.

By: Matt Milosavljevic

Matt Milosavljevic — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 01:02:46 +0000

How amusing, Murdoch casually walked past me yesterday as I was walking to work in the morning. I actually thought about asking him whether he would open up the WSJ site but thought better of it.

By: Tim

Tim — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:02:56 +0000

Although anyone can get $1 eCPM with a standard blog, news sites actually have a pretty tough time selling ads on various topics. Not many advertisers would like to see their message next to the latest terrorist bomb blast or corruption lawsuit.

Yes the technology, finance and other sectors can do very well and be generating over $25 eCPM, the general news parts of the site would be very lucky to do so (Stated CPM prices are generally quite overstated). WSJ may be a very trusted brand, but as an average I think over $10 - $15 eCPM is pretty optimistic.

Nonetheless, they would have more than one ad per page making their per page CPM between $20 and $30 for two ads - making the rest of the calculations work in my understanding at least.

Also, getting only 20 pageviews per month per user is pretty low. I am from the UK and don’t really use WSJ or NYT as resources much at all, but probably see about that many pages on them per month anyway. I probably read about 10 times that on the BBC and double it on The Times or The Guardian and I wouldn’t consider myself atypical.

-Tim

By: Emon

Emon — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 23:22:05 +0000

It’d be stupid not to take down the subscription wall. If the company doesn’t find a way to make Fox Business Network and WSJ work (with a little MySpace sandwiched in)…this whole acquisition would just be a waste.

No matter what people think of him, Murdoch doesn’t waste time or money to acquire something and sit on it. That’s because time is something he can’t buy more of. Catch my drift?

By: rfre

rfre — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:57:31 +0000

To follow up on my last post, they are currently charging up to a $90 CPM for premium ads. Check it out for yourself:

http://advertising.wsj.com/online/rates/index.html

By: rfre

rfre — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:55:03 +0000

Murdoch is smart. They could easily make more than $50 million on advertising. Tear down this wall!

@7 - I hope you were joking about the $1 CPM. They have advanced targeting and could easily get away with a $25 CPM. The only time you’ll see a $1 CPM is on your crappy blog.

By: suzane

suzane — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:52:57 +0000

this is a great news!!!

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:47:36 +0000

There is no way to know how much the traffic to the site will increase if the info is free. The only way to know is what the current traffic is relative to people leaving the site once they encounter the login box. Also, not sure I buy the idea that print would decrease. I know that has occurred with other publications, but you have to consider the group of individuals who read WSJ. Not exactly technically savvy and early adopters.

Last point. There is a value to having customers willing to submit CC info and pay a subscription. That value needs to be considered when changing over the model of the business like this. Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

By: dusty bottoms

dusty bottoms — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:31:49 +0000

the current ad com is higher than $25. And worth it since it’s a qualified audience. Going free pits it on the same level as forbes and CNN money.

By: Carl

Carl — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:26:18 +0000

I, too, am pleased with the idea of a free online WSJ, though wonder about the business sense of such a move. Besides the ideas listed above, I also believe that it will lower the depth of readership. When I paid for a NY Times subscription, I tended to read much more of the paper. Now that I read it for free on the web, I tend to be more choosy about the articles. Maybe that has more to do with having less disposable time than with quality or some later-in-life development of ADD.

There is a part of me, though, that will always enjoy holding a newsprint based (dead-tree) paper. It’s just not the same sitting in my easy chair on a Saturday morning with my laptop.

dave, yes, I think there is still a market for their advanced monitoring tools. I believe Forbes still has some similar offerings, though I don’t know how well they perform for them.

By: Ted

Ted — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:13:28 +0000

So you’re saying that if they can get 10x the amount of people, at the very height of the ad market, they can make $10m more.

I may be the only one, but it sounds like the subscription option is a better one.

By: www.CARversation.com

www.CARversation.com — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:56:42 +0000

this is just awesome great made my day news. i’m subscribed so now i cancel it soon, this is so cool, it would make sense to have more people.

By: dave

dave — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:03:46 +0000

this is great news, and a brilliant idea…i pay for print only, read it every morning (and saturday) and got online for free in a promo - but i rarely use the online version unless i’m clicking through to a link of an older story (because i’m reading it in print daily)…

of interest: would any users be willing to still pay for advanced market monitoring tools and other wsj exclusives?

By: Scott

Scott — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:59:05 +0000

The online version is already much much cheaper so I am not totally sold on the thought that it will kill the print version to offer WSJ.com for free. I think that there are still plenty of people, although numbers are declining, who still prefer a printed newspaper.

I am an online subscriber and would love to eliminate that bill!

By: Simon

Simon — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:58:18 +0000

Do you not think they already show ads and make extra money from those that serve their million subscription customers?

That would increase their $50 million substantially already.

What a great dilemma to be in though…

By: gilltots

gilltots — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:30:43 +0000

i hope they do make it free…if they need to cut costs they can always fire the guy that does those stipple drawings of people..

By: Abhishek

Abhishek — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:29:45 +0000

As I said back in early August, he should do it.

http://abhishek.tiwari.com/200.....over-time/

By: Becks

Becks — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:26:42 +0000

’bout time!

By: dailytwitter

dailytwitter — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:23:32 +0000

hey guys check the article you have spelling mistakes….

shurely shome mishtake

By: jbwebs

jbwebs — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:22:07 +0000

$25 CPM… keep dreaming. $1 CPM, maybe.

By: Pran Kurup

Pran Kurup — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:18:15 +0000

When you have a targeted subscription base you should be able to charge higher for Ads than you can when you open up the floodgates of traffic to all and sundry. So making it free might not necessarily mean an increase in ad revenue.

If I am not mistaken, the WSJ was free for a short period of time when they first launched years back before switching to a subscription model. This could mean that the this option was probably considered before News Corp stepped in.