August 13, 2007

EVEN ELECTRONIC, THEY'RE STILL FISHWRAP AT THE END OF THE DAY:

Fee content vs. free content: The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times may drop pay-to-read content. But online ad revenue alone won't cut it. (Dante Chinni, 8/14/07, CS Monitor)

For the Journal, the speculation has come with the purchase of the paper by Rupert Murdoch. Some believe that Mr. Murdoch's goal is to make the Journal much more than a required read by the nation's MBA class. Many analysts believe he wants to make the paper a national, politically conservative alternative to the Times.

That goal, plus the desire to increase online audience and ad revenue reportedly has Murdoch thinking about removing the Journal's pay-to-read firewall – or at least parts of it. There are roughly 1 million online Journal subscribers each paying $79 a year. It has been a remarkably successful exception to the mostly free-content world.


the Journal could only get it away with it because guys could treat it as a business expense, which, on the other hand, meant that no one else read it.

Posted by Orrin Judd at August 13, 2007 10:00 PM
Comments

I wouldn't read it if they paid me $10.00 per click.

Posted by: erp at August 14, 2007 9:22 AM

erp: the Times or the Journal? :>)

The WSJ is actually a good lunch-time read. The political articles (as opposed to the editorial page) are often reflexively lefty, and I have written a few reporters to ask them if they do that just to be different, like punks or goths. They have not been amused (when they have written back). But, about once or twice a week, there is a very good lead article.

The columns by Walter Mossberg and the book reviews are usually pretty good, too. And anytime Fouad Ajami has an editorial, it is worth reading.

With respect to the Times, if I want to know what is happening in NY, I'll pick up the Post.

Posted by: jim hamlen at August 15, 2007 7:48 AM
« THE WIND AT THEIR BACKS: | Main | A TOOL WITH WHICH TO BREAK THE LEFT: »