News Corp chairman Rupert 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 free.
Although the full details of the plan are not clear, Murdoch said that much more of the site would be offered for free, however “the really special things will still be a subscription service, and, sorry to tell you, probably more expensive.”
The decision bucks the recent trend of other subscription services being dropped as online advertising revenue offered a viable economic alternative to paid subscriptions, the biggest switcher being the New York Times in September 2007.
(via WSJ)
See all
Post
Smart move, people often associate shit with free. This guy knows how to make money period.
anyone has any data on how the readership number changes after migration to free content?
I love this decision in theory, but as always, the devil’s in the details. It’ll be interesting to see if News Corp. goes to school on the NYT’s experience with Times Select: can they actually figure out where to draw the line, i.e. what content should remain behind the pay wall? I’d expect the archives to go free (a potential search bonanza), but what exactly qualifies as “the really special things”?
@1 “people often associate shit with free” is so 90s.
I think that today, people often associate subscription based content as waste of money as there are free alternatives.
google is free.
techcrunch is free.
facebook is free.
i don’t think anyone thinks that they are shit.
Cheers,
Eytan.
Duncan,
I call it the burn the village strategy…they are commoditizing the blogosphere…
http://furrier.org/2008/01/24/.....lly-means/
Library accounts are free and anyone with a library account can get WSJ.com for free.
@4 - You forgot the NY Times, Washington Post and a slew of other high profile news sources are free also.
The WSJ is living in the past when it used to be relevant. It’s really hard to to teach an old dog new tricks…..
I think this is the right move by the WSJ and I think JeremyB is right. No one knows where do draw the line when it comes to free content and paid content.
I think eventually that the WSJ will be free but by continuing to offer a paid service they still get to keep all the subscription fees. They would be stupid to end subscription fees all at once. Hundreds of thousands of subscribers probably write that fee off or it is paid by their company. Most of their subscribers could care less about the cost. As the years go on, the subscriber benefits will become less and less valuable but if they keep their subscriber base, there will be no reason to switch to free.
I gladly pay the subscription fee. Quality content cannot be free.
“Although the full details of the plan are not clear”
for us, not for Murdoch LOL
Prediction: Digital products will be free.
yeah, i guess thats why i check the NYT website 90 times a day and the WSJ website 3 or 4…oh well, i was hoping they’d go the free route i think rupert’s initial instincts were right—go free
Please explain how the content is of better quality because a few people, curiously, are willing to pay for it.
them bones, them bones…
Of course they are keeping the paid content … the advertising pie is TOO small.
People ARE willing to pay for content, they just aren’t willing to pay for it in the current format that sites like WSJ are offering it. Would you pay for channel 47? No, but as part of your cable TV you watch it periodically. Same with paid sites. There are sites like OnScribe offering paid membership websites as a package.
People will pay for a valuable service and convenience.
I had a thought that perhaps the majority of the people who pay for WSJ content are doing so as a “business expense” and taking a tax deduction. Since the WSJ is focused on financial news, you can make a good case with the IRS for doing this. This deduction probably couldn’t be made to fly with most other papers.
I wonder how their subscription model would hold up if a tax deduction couldn’t be taken against the subscription fees?
The idea of the ‘free’ model is to attract a high plurality of viewers and then advertise. This works in a 3 channel universe, i.e. early television. It DOES NOT work on the Internet; or it will work for only one or two sites. Simple math proves that 20 good content sites cannot all draw a plurality of viewers; i.e. they cannot all be sustained by a business model of advertising revenue only.
Idiots - all those who think that using the medium that common everyday folk subsides and join the dots which makes the whole - and then come along these nitwits - they need to wake up and smell the coffee already - we will not pay……we will not pay…..you will change —— now or some other day —-come what may
G-d … people will pay … mark my word almighty one.