9 comments

• 

  Paul Kedrosky

  1 year ago

  Surprised you tumbled for this one, my friend. As I pointed out earlier today on my site, the headline writers have the story backwards. Murdoch says he is he is greatly _expanding_ the free parts of the WSJ. sure, some things will remain premium and become more expensive, which is just another way of saying that the Dow wire, DJNR, and some data services won't be free. Zero surprise.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  1 year ago

  Yeah, it does sound as though the free content is going to be expanded --
  which makes it kind of odd that the Journal would play the story the way it
  did. Maybe Rupe is trying to have his cake and eat it too with the story
  about the story :-)
  
  If it's just the Dow wire and DJNR and all that behind the wall then I don't
  care as much. But do we know that there's no regular newspaper (i.e.,
  non-data) stuff staying behind the wall?
  reply
• 

  Rex Hammock

  1 year ago

  Matthew, I think the WSJ will get rid of the pay wall on most of the news and features and information that comprise what most general business readers think of as WSJ.com. I think the company will try to convince "subscribers" there's value in continuing to subscribe by adding limited access to more "business-to-business' type of data and information that's under the "Dow Jones News-service" brand today -- or perhaps Factiva or some of their other premium business information services.
  
  My theory has been that nearly anything you can find in the paper will be -- and should be -- free on WSJ.com. The "expensive" stuff will be the type of data Dow-Jones provides professional traders and money managers and other business "clients" who are using the highly specialized information for critical -- or instantaneous -- decisions. I'm sure during the past few days when billions of dollars were made or lost in financial markets, the professionals who were managing those assets (or the rich guy managing his retirement account) would have paid a premium for whoever could provide the most dependable, accurate and quickest information available.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  1 year ago

  I hope you're right, Rex. It's not clear to me what exactly is going to
  remain for-pay in this new model, but if it's the kind of things that you
  and Paul are talking about then it makes sense -- the strictly data-oriented
  services, the Factiva stuff or whatever. I'm okay with that (I'm sure
  Rupert will be relieved). It is kind of odd the way the Journal played the
  story though, as Paul notes.
  reply
• 

  Dave Ingram

  1 year ago

  Oops I did it again! Got the story wrong.
  
  One of the 7 habits of highly effective people is: "seek to understand before being understood"
  
  You and so many other bloggers are so desperate to make it first with a story on to Techmeme you often forget to check your facts and your supposed to be a professional journalist!?
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  1 year ago

  Hey, Dave -- relax. There was a misunderstanding -- and not just by me, but
  lots of other people too. You want to talk about professional journalists?
  Talk about the way that WSJ headline and story were written.
  
  Anyway, everyone understands each other now -- no harm done. Welcome to the
  Internet.
  reply
• 

  antje wilsch

  1 year ago

  Blogging in general to me still seems like passive "journalism" and much more opinionated and reactive towards news than traditional journalism. I don't see bloggers jumping on planes to Afghanistan or Kenya (or even the front door of Heath Ledger's apartment building for that awful matter) to report on news. They let journalists dig, do research, and come up with stories, and then react to them. Blogging has a definite, and positive role to fill in the "new media" era but I don't seem bloggers who sit in front of their screens being fed data and blogging on it replacing paid journalists any time soon.
  reply
• 

  Harold

  1 year ago

  I don't understand why either your or Fred make these pronouncements without actually considering any numbers.
  
  In order to replicate their subscription income, WSJ.com needs roughly 10x more traffic, and that's assuming today's high CPM rates and that they would get close to selling our their inventory. Do you really believe it's possible for WSJ.com to hit 50m monthly uniques? Not unless they totally dilute their content by covering stuff that's irrelevant to their core audience.
  
  As I wrote on Fred's site, WSJ.com can be just as much a part of the conversation by adding blogs and other inexpensive free content and still maintain a lucrative subscription option.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  1 year ago

  Thanks for the comment, Harold. I have considered the numbers (although I
  didn't mention them in this particular post). I think CPM rates for
  high-value content like that produced by the WSJ will inevitably increase,
  but that's not why I think they should do it. I think that the value they
  will get out of all of their properties -- including the print version --
  will be enhanced by making their content more a part of the broader
  conversation. Obviously I don't have any numbers to prove that, but
  nevertheless I believe it.
  reply