Slashdot Mirror
WSJ's Online Subscriptions Outperform Print
ScentCone writes "The New York Post is reporting that the Wall Street Journal's parent company, Dow Jones, is doing much better with its online publication than with print. Online subscribers pay $84/year, whereas print subscribers are still paying $356... and the profit on the online business is 20 times that of the paper flavor." From the article: "'They're simply losing market share to other media. Print publishing is not a profitable business for Dow Jones anymore,' said Feinseth. Kann is hoping that the company's long-range growth also comes in online publishing, which has profit margins at least 20-fold higher than print. The Wall Street Journal Online is signing up thousands of new subscribers, up 5.2 percent for the quarter, to a total of 731,000."
This makes sense to me, especially when you are dealing with the chaotic and capricious world of finance. It's nice to have a paper with you, sure, but with the ever changing world of business, you need to have now headlines now, and yesterday's news may be obsolete by the time it gets to your door.
In relative expenses, print is so much more Capital Intensive compared to On-line. Not only that, but the turn-around required to post a story is faster with web-based publishing. Most economic projections show that charging 50% less for a yearly subscription for significantly faster news response is over 200% more profitable when going to a web-based readership.
They should offer a paid service for stories over 2 months old and delay stories by 15 minutes to an hour for non-subscribers. In addition, have specialized content for subscribers. With no required signup to see the free content, they would encourage people to check out the site. I believe they would end up with a decent return on investment.
In God we trust, all others require data.
> Online subscribers pay $84/year..
> the profit on the online business is
> 20 times that of the paper flavor."
So.. 84/20 = 4.20
Online subscribers pay $84/year, whereas print subscribers are still paying $356
The WSJ only costs you $356 if you buy it from the newstand every day. Don't do that. In fact, you can get a year of the print AND online versions for only slightly more than the online versions. Check here for a $99/year deal. (referral-free link).
What I like about the WSJ is that, unlike in most papers where fact and opinion are combined through out all the news articles, the WSJ is pretty much straight facts in the articles and the opinions are relegated to the Opinion section. Don't get me wrong, I like reading the Opinion section but when it comes to news reporting, just the facts ma'am!
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
WSJ is worth every penny. No fluff, jus the facts. Friday offers a great personal journal for things over the weekend.
Student rate rocks! It's about $150, can't remember exactly, and you get BOTH the online version and the print version (delivered to the door). I'm currently pursuing my Masters and this is a great deal. Rock on WSJ!
Q: I am short, useless and provide no value. What am I? A: a sig
Not so. You are assuming that all $84 of the subscription fee are profit. There is still a cost associated with producing the online version of the WSJ, i.e. staff, servers, overhead, etc. For example, if we assume the cost of producing the WSJ online is $44/subscription, then profit would be $40. So assuming the WSJ is willing to cut profits to 1/20th of the current level, the online subscription would still cost $46, not $4.20
For all of those of you out there who missed the satire here (oh gosh I hope it's satire) please read.
They are in the same business yet the online is making 20 times the profit of print. Take the online subscription fee of $84 per year / 20 times the profit = $4.20 per year is the expected price for subscriptions.
Notice that what is being done is that the total revenue per subscriber is being divided by the profit ratio. This makes no sense. That $84 per customer per year is used to pay for the infrastructure, staff, etc. to provide the service. Let's say that $80 per customer per subscriber. That leaves $4 in profit. Which would mean that the paper version makes $.20 per subscriber per year. My point is not the exact numbers, but that the basic mathematics used is WRONG! You cannot divide revenue by a profit comparison ratio and come up with a meaningful subscriber cost.
All the major newspapers (NYTimes, Boston Globe, etc) out here on the east coast have started to see their online revenues outpacing the growth of the offline ones. This is a trend that will only continue as these sites become outlets for information not only via text but also audio and video. This truly is an age where TV stations, Radio Stations and Newspapers (the old media) are going to be going head to head with the Googles and Yahoo's (new media). I bet we'll see some consolidations and maybe even some more AOL Time Warner style mergers (could they really have had foresight?).
My 2 cents.