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.
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:
Read more here.Â
Media News
Bagchee returning to CNBC to run international
April 24, 2024
Media News
Hillman Prizes awarded to Quartz, Bloomberg Businessweek
April 24, 2024
Media News
Investment Week promotes Angeloni to special projects editor
April 24, 2024
Media News
CoStar parent reports strong first quarter
April 24, 2024
Media News
Semafor promotes Tani to media editor
April 24, 2024
Subscribe to TBN
Receive updates about new stories in the industry daily or weekly.