Rich Smith of The Motley Fool gives some reasons why The Wall Street Journal‘s web site should continue to charge readers for access.
Smith wrote, “I won’t go into great detail here repeating my arguments against the wisdom of Murdoch’s decision to join the online journalism free-for-all. Basically, they boil down to:
Brand: People believe that ‘you get what you pay for.’ By removing the price tag that tells people what WSJ.com’s value is, Murdoch will devalue the brand.
Synergy: Charging for both WSJ.com and The Wall Street Journal proper allowed News Corp. to offer two-for-one pricing deals, using one medium to help sell the other. Making WSJ.com free continues the two-for-one tradition — except that now, it’s going to be ‘two-for-free,’ as the Journal‘s paying subscribers migrate to the free website.
Timing: Google, ValueClick, and Time Warner‘s AOL had it pretty good for a while, capitalizing on a bull market for online advertising. But as fellow Fool Rick Munarriz recently pointed out, the ‘surge in ad revenue’ that AOL has been chasing is proving elusive of late. This market may have peaked already.
OLD Media Moves
Why the WSJ.com should remain a pay site
November 16, 2007
Posted by Chris Roush
Rich Smith of The Motley Fool gives some reasons why The Wall Street Journal‘s web site should continue to charge readers for access.
Read more here.Â
Media News
Ad Age taps Sanchez to be community growth editor
June 13, 2025
Media News
Business Insider rolls out AI policy
June 13, 2025
Media News
Freyman moving to new role at Morning Brew
June 13, 2025
Full-Time
Morning Brew seeks an editorial director for consumer newsletters
June 13, 2025
Full-Time
WSJ seeks a Los Angeles bureau chief
June 13, 2025
Subscribe to TBN
Receive updates about new stories in the industry daily or weekly.