Ever since the rear-guard at the Wall Street Journal won the battle to keep its news pages behind its subscription wall (although, its opinion pages are now free), they have been cracking down especially hard on anyone trying to breach that wall—even if those people happen to be paying subscribers. In what appears to be an attempt to discourage freeloaders, the WSJ.com is locking out anyone from its site when it detects more than one simultaneous log-in on the same account. But innocent, rule-abiding subscribers who may be using multiple computers, or doing nothing wrong other than forgetting to log out of their accounts, are being shut out as well (see email below).
That is no way to treat your customers. In fact, it shows an utter disdain for how normal people actually use the Web. But it is an understandable, and classic, reaction. Incumbent executives always try to fend off inevitable disruption by blindly protecting their current sources of revenues. I liked Rupert Murdoch’s original idea of tearing down the entire subscription wall much better.
Here is the e-mail I received from a paying online subscriber, describing his ordeal with the WSJ.com and a screen shot of what he saw when he was in breach of the multiple login rule. Hopefully, this is an isolated case. Otherwise, the WSJ.com could have a reader revolt on its hands of its own making. (If anyone else has experienced the same thing, please share in comments).
I’ve been a paying subscriber of the Wall Street Journal online since 1995.
About two weeks ago they made a change so that they allow only one
login per account at a time and closing a browser isn’t sufficient,
you have to manually logout. If you forget and try to access the site
from another browser or machine, they lock your account and make you
call in to get it reset.
As one who uses many computers and browsers, this is a major change
and hassle. They don’t even let you get to the free version without
clearing cookies if your account is locked; you just get a nasty
message.
Furthermore, the unlock process requires long-wait times on the phone and
answering lots of questions. I tried email, but no response after 24 hours.
I’ve been through this twice now and they insist that they will continue this
policy to prevent subscription sharing.
Given general trends and that there was recent talk of them going free
and 100% ad-supported, this feels quite draconian. I fully appreciate
their desire to prevent people from stealing their service, but they
are actually preventing paying subscribers from easily using the service.
Also, there are better technology solutions to the problem.
Update: Dow Jones got back to us with a response:
Hi Erick -
I wanted to send a note in response to the earlier post re: WSJ.com subscribers.
Our subscribers often use multiple computers to access their accounts; therefore, we’ve had a long-standing policy of allowing up to three concurrent logins in order to deliver the best customer experience possible. Customer satisfaction and service are of the utmost importance, and we regret any inconveniences incurred by this user.
Thanks.
Ashley Huston
Dow Jones Public Relations
See all
Post
OMG, thats actually amazing they went from talking about open access to locking down typical subscriber access… this will have to correct its self, as I can envision the call center volume charts at the end of the month.
they don’t hate the web that much cuz I just ate the breakfast they sponsored in Demo conference two days ago
lvl
Erick, what has this post gotta do with Microsoft Yahoo merger?
“That is no way to treat your customers. In fact, it shows an utter disdain for how normal people actually use the Web.”
Perfectly put Eric. It’s amazing companies like this haven’t a clue. They blindly march on a punishing path when a number cruncher says “a certain percentage of subs are likely being shared…”, a path to dismember anyone that MIGHT be doing this. And in so doing, they break the legs of all paying consumers.
For my blog, ConsumerPassion, I’m always on the lookout for companies who know how to treat consumers, who by going above and beyond the norms of service, create ‘passionate consumers’. WSJ … fail.
The new login should clear the current sessionID for the user.
If you log in twice to MSN or AIM, it does that. The existing user’s session ID is terminated and the new login overtakes the session.
This is just a programming error, nothing more.
Egads! Does this mean we will be seeing wsj join the deadpool? Old media needs to get with the program.
Greed is good?
I am a WSJ subscriber, and have not experienced the log-in problem noted in this post.
I don’t object to paying the paper for its excellent reporting, or for the quality of its writing, which is universally seen as the gold standard of print journalism.
I don’t see how reading the WSJ’s work on a blog or ‘news aggregation’ site would provide me with any added value.
@Chris
WSJ should be paying you a hefty salary to come up with that incredibly complex concept.
Seriously, is there any usability ever taken into consideration by these media houses? This has to be one of the dumbest design concepts I’ve ever seen, and it’s not like they are the first ones to ever have tried this.
For things like MSN and AIM it would be a technical requirement to invalidate an existing session for a user if they sign on with another computer because it just wouldn’t work otherwise (without some serious hackery at least). But whoever came up with the use case for this one dropped the ball, and then couldn’t pick it up because they had to go somewhere else and got locked out.
“For your security, The Wall Street Journal Online restricts multiple concurrent logins”
YOUR security? Don’t they mean OUR security?
“For the security of our subscribers, we prevent password sharing.”
What in the world does that actually mean. What insecurities are they referring to? I think maybe they are confusing the security of their subscribers with the security of their own income. Unless I’m missing something.
I don’t read their paper so I’m really don’t have any vested interest in their success or failure, I’m just saying.
I’ve mentioned this before, get free remote online access through your local library. All you need is a library account.
So what? Honestly, I wouldn’t expect any content pay site to let multiple logins occur. You’re making an elephant out of a mouse here. What’s your REAL problem with WSJ?
Wow, I’m a subscriber to WSJ online and within the course of a day could easily read it on any (or all) of my 3 computers. This is disappointing, especially since they could easily implement a more reader friendly solution … as Chris pointed out above.
What is the solution when more than one person in a household wants to login to WSJ at the same time? Have they thought through that scenario? Surely they must not be expecting people to buy multiple subscriptions.
I used to subscribe to the WSJ Online (stopped when Murdoch bought it and I thought it was going free — silly me — and I also started receiving a free daily paper version), and I vaguely recall that they tried this about two years ago. I distinctly remember logging in (like a normal human, i log in at home AND at work — wow), and getting this error message. I thought there was a similar protest from the users and they turned it off. It seems like they just turned something back on without trying to improve the original bad experience.
I’ve been a subscriber to wsj.com since the late 90s. they’ve had this simulaneous access restriction on their site for years. You can even run into it from the same computer by accessing the site from multiple browsers. It’s a complete nuisance, no question about it.
While they have every right to protect their business model, this an amazingly clumsy and annoying way to do it.
I’m still a subscriber though - quality is quality.
I’ve had the same problem. I can access the site fine from my work computer, but it gives me a bunch of weird characters on my screen when I try to access the site from my home computer. And I thought I was doing something wrong!
Keep calling the customer service and do it often. Each call incurs a cost to WSJ and it won’t take long for them to figure out this is a bad idea, not only in terms of customer satisfaction but also business.
oh please
“for security reasons, we do not allow password sharing”
Do they think anyone is dumb enough to buy this drivel, they should call a spade a spade…
“for revenue preseveration reasons, we do not allow freeloading”
WSJ is ridiculous. I am experiencing the same problem. They certainly do not “get it”. I have two computers…and my wife has a computer. We have one WSJ subscription. Now we cannot both read the Journal. Couldn’t they at least do what iTunes, for example, does and allow 5 personal accounts? So much for understanding your customers.
WSJ like NYT are the artifacts of an era that is long gone. The era of walled gardens is long gone. I used to be an avid Journal reader until around 5 years ago and then I “grew up.” They offer nothing that is not available out there.
No… They don’t hate the web.
WSJ, employees, journalists & chief editorial hates Techcrunch and even posters. They brought cookie data & data from private companies. They tried to stop Techcrunch shipping good news.
Nothing happen to people who don’t access Techcrunch. WSJ reads cookies rejected Techcrunch access.
Oh by the way, WSJ really really really hate Michael Arrington.
I don’t know man. WSJ brought private data. They did nazi things to techcrunch.
I recently let my subscription end, while I liked the layout there was nothing that I couldn’t find for free on many other financial related sites. This new policy is great advertising for competitor sites who offer content for free.
While I don’t agree with the WSJ policy discussed in this post, TechCrunch’s constant criticism of the WSJ’s business model is wearing thin. Newsflash: You’re in the same business. The WSJ commands a premium price from its subscribers because it provides premium content. (And by “premium content” I mean well-written, relevant, chaff-free news that’s clearly separated from it’s often nauseatingly conservative editorial content.)
I am a subscriber to the Wall Street Journal since 1996.
It is sad that they are allowing only one subscription but I expect Murdoch to make the journal free pretty soon. I think Murdoch is simply testing the waters.
For now I am canceling my subscription and reading it free at the library.
Regards.
This is funny
What is difference between Techcrunch & WSJ?
Well, Duncan riley is very first techcrunch gay writer. WSJ is donald triumph or anti-gay party. This why they block it.
They giving execuse and strange cookie access. If you using not techcrunch. That shouldn’t be problem….
In the tradition of ‘Old’ media they should allow multiple users to access the site simultaneously, but only in DIFFERENT sections of the site. It would be like having to read the Sports page of the paper because your wife has the Front page… ;-P
I just started noticing this as well, and it’s really annoying, especially if you are trying to, say, read your WSJ on the iphone but your MBP is back at the office still on the site. I don’t mind paying for the content, but don’t be all gestapo about it.
That’s just silly of WSJ, it is going to increase their phone support costs to handle the complaints. In the grand scheme of things, it might not be cost-effective for them to impose this restriction.
Are you kidding me? WSJ owns their content. They can choose to keep it behind a walled environment, make it available via RSS with advertising or whatever they want. They are paying their staff to write articles and if the demand for the content is high enough they can charge for it what the market will bear as there are alternatives.
The problem is in the product manager who didn’t figure out all the use cases and the product marketing in educating you user base about the forthcoming changes and getting feedback.
This is the equivalent of the WSJ physical edition going to 4pt font or something — not the equivalent of them raising or lowering prices.
WSJ hired smartest people who can’t fix the web 1.0. :/
you know, I like WSJ content a lot more than NYTimes content but I love how nytimes.com is fully open so I always go to nytimes.com and I never go to wsj.com. Long live Marshall Simmonds, the SEO expert at NYTimes who has helped make NYTimes so solid on the web. I wish WSJ would follow their lead. A friend of mine, Paul Breummer of Red Door Interactive, wrote an article that contrasted the SEO-ification of nytimes.com vs. wsj.com…and nytimes.com just crushed wsj.com. The thing that Marshall discovered for nytimes.com is that they would make SO much more ad revenue by opening up all that content to be crawled & indexed & visited than they ever would by forcing paid subscriptions to online content. WSJ would have similar success if someone would just show them the numbers (oh, and redesign their site to be super spider-friendly).
I’m trying to figure out what makes ‘Erick Schonfeld’ such an expert on the journalism business that he can criticize the WSJ and refer to them as “the old guard”.
What makes the ‘A-list bloggers’ businessmen? Or are they not businessmen at all?
Questions, questions.
Many startups like us…. We are soo afraid of Maria Bartiromo!!!
We never do interview with threating woman and scary Q&A.
Michael Arrington is safe with us.
The avantegard Business 2.0, on the other hand, allowed universal access for all.
Brigg -
Prove it.
Show me numbers which prove that the WSJ would make more money, right now, by monetizing all of its online jouralism exclusively with ads. It’s difficult for me to believe that your friend has drawn a finer bead on business models for online journalism than the executives at Dow Jones / News Corp. In the long run, I believe the Journal will continue to produce the best reporting of any American paper, precisely because its business model is financially sound. Have you seen capitalization figures for the NYT recently?
That said, the WSJ could do a better job of giving me access to my subscriptions on different platforms.
Sounds like they don’t plan on moving to a free model any time soon…
We thought about implementing an IP address lock-down for our subscription venture capital database (shameless plug: http://www.VentureDeal.com), but after about 5 seconds decided against it for the very reasons cited in the article.
To make password-sharing more encumbering, the WSJ could simply require users to change their password periodically…We don’t, but it is one way to minimize access sharing.
To continue on my thoughts (and agree with Doug), where’s the model that suggests that SEO work would greatly improve WSJ’s advertising.
Further SEO content in many cases is somewhat expired, meaning that the quality of the both the content and user viewing the advertising decreases.
I would imagine that WSJ prefers it’s the Match.com of online business journalism, not the Plenty of Fish.
Sounds more like a “inadvertent bug” in their login mechanism. They’re attempting to be strict, but in all likelihood, they’ll have to loosen it up a bit if they notice a large number of incorrectly locked accounts.
All you folks that “love” the openness of the NYT and can’t figure out why the WSJ keeps charging for their (vastly superior) content - better start making a contribution voluntarily because the NYT stock is so far down the toilet you’ll need a long rubber glove and plunger to get it out.
This is the same thing that is happening in the music industry and the real estate industry. When something shakes a business model to it’s core, the old school litigates, while the new school innovates.
WSJ is strictly old school.
As one counterpoint to the provocative title of this post, folks might want to check out http://online.wsj.com/article/.....00300.html.
In short, they are partnering with Loomia on their Facebook app: SeenThis. Seems fairly progressive to me.
Wall Street is retarded. They just want to seem like a high end business place. Funny being Wall Street, you’d think they would know, they can make more money from putting ads and being free.
Clearly WSJ missed the mark in that PR statement. It’s not about the fact he got locked out for multiple sessions, it’s the fact they still believe the walled-garden approach works.
I just know I NEVER link to WSJ, despite how relevant the content because I dont want my visitors going there, ever. Long live the AP, Feeds, RSS and Blogs!
Blogosphere > WSJ.
~Joe
@kmr2 — That link’s dead …
PAGE UNAVAILABLE
The document you requested either no longer exists or is not currently available.
You may use the “Back” button in your browser to return to the previous page, click Home to return to the WSJ.com home page, or access the Site Map.
To report this problem, contact Customer Service at onlinejournal@wsj.com.
@Joe,
Sorry about that - didn’t realize the period at the end of the sentence would get added to the hyperlink. Let’s try again:
http://online.wsj.com/article/.....00300.html
Wow, that’s two things that makes me want to punch a company in the eye (if that were possible) on the same page. One, telling me, a subscriber who’s already paid, to pay them again because they’re too incompetent to tell I’m a subscriber. Because of the big font-differentiated letters and the highlighting in red, the first thing I see is ‘You’re a cheat! Pay us more money!’ Ever had a checkout girl forget to take the security tag off your purchase, had the alarm go off as you leave, and get treated like a shoplifter by a 6-foot thicko in a security uniform? It’s annoying when a company treats you like a criminal, but it’s infuriating when you’ve paid them money.
The second bugbear is the treating of their readers like morons. “For your security…” how the hell does this make me more secure? It’s as bad as getting a full-page ad between websites and being told it’s a ‘welcome screen’. Tell the truth, we might even respect you for it.
Eyes may instinctively roll at the sight of a blogger attacking the Wall Street Journal, but they really are completely out of touch if they think that people nowadays only ever view a website from one computer, and won’t mind logging off and logging on again every time they visit. Convenience, convenience, convenience.
I have a solution to the password sharing problem that would work in favor of both parties.
Question is, who would I bring the idea to without it getting lost in the shuffle?