Slashdot Mirror
Murdoch's New Internet Strategy for the WSJ
Reservoir Hill writes "Once Rupert Murdoch's acquisition of Dow Jones & Company is completed later this year, Murdoch plans to provide free access to The Wall Street Journal's Web site, trading subscription fees for anticipated ad revenue. The WSJ web site, one of the few news sites to successfully introduce a subscription model, currently has around one million subscribers and generates about $50 million annually in user fees. Murdoch's decision to move to an advertising based model comes amid reports that newspaper's online profits margins are skyrocketing worldwide. Murdoch's previous internet initiative, his acquisition of MySpace has worked out very well. He actually first discussed this two years ago when he spoke before the American Society of Newspaper Editors on the role of newspapers in this digital world.""
the companies who would like to see their ad in myspace would pale in comparison to the ones that would put their ads on wsj. if they had done it long ago, they would have dwarfed that $50 mil buck a month for long now.
Read radical news here
That a story about an online newspaper dropping subscriptions is on an online newspaper that requires a subscription?
Oh well, we get a free newspaper but in exchange it means yet more of the media being owned by the same guy.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Is Murdoch counting on the proposition that WSJ readers too dumb to use ad blockers like the Fireox/Adblock Pro combination?
$50milj is nothing for him. He rather open it up to masses so he can "reach out" with "right" information to them. ;)
/. please stop using URLs directed to nytimes? They all seem to need to login.
Also, I know it's offtopic but can
Murdoch's plan is to make the newspaper free because his new revenue model is to shape public opinion with articles to buy his investments.
If Murdoch doesn't play around with the newsroom the WSJ should continue its tradition of excellence. I've been reading the NY Times since it went free online and have been anticipating the same for the WSJ.
Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
Unless you appreciate Murdoch's sided opinion, xenophobia, over-dramatization and FUD. Clearly a lot of Brits and Americans are lapping it up.
I think this is worth discussing. For about 10 years the WSJ was the perfect example of a site that could get paid subscribers in large numbers, unlike any other newspaper in the USA. It had a large body of specialized content not available elsewhere (and no the wonderful data tables in the WSJ are not available in blogs) and a dedicated readership. So we aren't talking a site that has gone from subscriber to ad-revenue but rather the example site. Moreover the WSJ unlike most other newspapers hasn't devastated its news force (like almost all other mainstream media), its customers demand high quality content and are very willing to pay a premium for it.
A freely available WSJ could really change American media culture back to being one involving research and large staffs of knowledgeable people. I'm not sure how to think about this but this is a major piece of news and a change in the internet.
P.S. Please do not judge the WSJ by its editorial page. The rest of the newspaper has an entirely different feel.
Once Rupert gets his hands on WSJ, it will turn into the same POS that everything else becomes that he touches. A vitriolic, nationalistic, jingoistic, oversimplified propaganda sheet. When is he going to die anyway, he's had a good run. The world will be a better place when he's gone (for at least 10 milliseconds until the next evil tyrant emerges to take his place).
Hmm ... Why would online ad revenue profit margins skyrocket?
Two interrelated reasons:
1) There are only fixed costs associated with online delivery, and they are very low. After you reach your first reader, whether you reach your 2nd reader or your 2nd billion readers, your costs never change. The fixed costs of print (presses, pressmen, plants, etc.) are much greater than online production.
2) On line production has no recurring costs. The recurring costs for print (newsprint, ink, delivery, transportation, etc.) are really what's skyrocketing today, and will kill print media.
Of course, print eyeballs are like gold compared to online eyeballs (say, cellulose).
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
As Hitler said (I paraphrase): "Repeat the propaganda enough in as many different ways as possible, and the great undiscerning masses will believe it."
Murdoch is one of the most egregious pseudo-fascists to have twisted the arms of naive British politicians and he spands vast amounts in the US to get his way there, too. Not being a good businessman in the capitilist competitive sense, he trades on politicians weaknesses. It doesn't mean he's good, just that most politicians are dumb, corrupt or powerless. His outfit pays barely any taxes in the UK after having done a deal with Maggie. I think for a while, News International was paying only 4% or thereabouts. Of course, us ordinary oiks without the propaganda value of a newspaper chain to get the politicians slobbering don't get those sorts of break.
You are aware that the vast majority of normal people who use the Internet actually enjoy the advertisements right? They click on the monkey.
Is this true? I remain unconvinced.
Shock the monkey, yes. Spank the monkey, absolutely. But click on the monkey? I dunno.
-kgj
-kgj
I would much prefer an ad-based strategy rather than subscription. Adblock works great!
As a semi-pro blogger who does receive compensation (from advertising, paid product placement, and subscriptions), I still believe there is a long way to go to compete with the biggest old media outlets, especially newspapers. The key difference that I've seen, so far, is that the newspapers still have reporters, while the new media has just journalists. There is a decline in old media reporting, though, as more and more newspapers just regurgitate whatever the AP is reporting. Google News is hilarious when you find 500 identically written articles by major media outlets.
The WSJ has a unique combination of reporters, journalists, and oped pieces. They're going to be hard to topple. Their biggest downside is their support for war and their support for more government. So far, though, it has not hampered their growth.
I am one of the few new media writers that still has faith in the old media, but not most of it. There's room for a few dozen major newspapers to compete, but the majority of them will find themselves without readers, or advertisers, as they continue to lose market share to the new media writers who are faster, more varied in opinion, and closer to home for their readers.
It isn't that people who don't use ad-blocking software are dumb, it is more likely they don't care. Especially if the ads are non obtrusive.
I only block ads that open new windows and those which sound/video. Other than that I will let the ad display; after all it already consumed my bandwidth - ad blocking plug ins don't stop it from getting to my pc, just displaying it. I figure its not a big price to pay to view content for free.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Mr. Murdoch is very smart businessman and adapts well to new time and technology . That does not change the fact that Murdoch uses its media empire as propaganda in best tradition of Dr. Goebbels. I would not like to see the world where the majority of internet news/commentary sources is controlled by such guy. Thankfully internet is really hard to control now.
Murdoch's previous internet initiative, his acquisition of MySpace has worked out very well.
His previous project, sure. But his first Internet initiative, the Delphi online service (a "competitor" to AOL), wasn't so successful. Indeed, it was so unsuccessful that it's hard to find any trace of it on the Internet.
What papers are "Not" owned by Murdoch these days? I've ended up canceling every paper I get, as he bought them up. Ever since he has destroyed the Times.
Other than that I will let the ad display; after all it already consumed my bandwidth - ad blocking plug ins don't stop it from getting to my pc, just displaying it.
That's why you should block ads with a decent hosts file - your computer won't even contact the ad server, let alone use up bandwidth.
The straight-news part of the WSJ has some of the best and most eclectic reportage out there. It will be wonderful to be able to read it online for free (as in beer).
The OpinionJournal is so factually-challenged and idealogically blinkered that, at free, it costs too much.
Wait a minute. Didn't I say that on the other side of the record? I'd better check
There is a certain amount of truth in what you say- probably why you got modded down so quickly. I also prefer letting (most) ads run- I figure if I'm getting benefit from a site, they might as well make money off me (or try, anyway- just because I see ads doesn't mean I'll click on them.) Pop-up ads, of course, are not acceptable, and those will be blocked.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
... the New York Times drop their stupid login requirement?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Putting more ads on the wsj's website would be a major mistake if it's anything like what the BBC is trying to do. Odds are they're going to piss off their main customer base due to annoying and obtrusive flash ads that distract the readers from what they're trying to read. And since this is the WSJ, these readers typically think that their time is scarce and don't want to have to be annoyed with said distracting ads.
I've been reading the WSJ since 1972. When they went on line I bought a subscription.
Over the years, the news section of the WSJ has been the most reliable source of general news that I've been able to find (and I also read the NYT every day). They've resisted influence by advertisers, government intimidation, and the bullshit that other news sources fall for. I'm in a good position to judge health care, which is my specialty. Here's an example of the kind of coverage which you literally won't find anywhere else: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06339/743713-84.stm
As part of its own coverage of the Murdoch takeover attempt, the WSJ itself had a story summarizing how Murdoch has influenced and distorted the news, for his own selfish or partisan reasons, in his other holdings, and how he's made and broken promises of editorial integrity and independence. The worst example I remember was that he dropped the BBC news off a satellite feed to China, because he wanted to ingratiate the Chinese government to get access to the Chinese market. The BBC was running stories about China's human rights abuses. Oh, the hypocrisy -- a self-proclaimed Reagan conservative selling out his principles to the Communists. (Although you could argue that he has no principles to sell out.)
Past performance is the best predictor of futher performance. I'd rather pay $100 a year to get accurate, unbiased news from the WSJ than get the WSJ free after Murdoch does to it what he's done to all his other media holdings. You get what you pay for, and the WSJ used to be worth paying for.
I'm still trying to figure out how the dude can be Bill O'Reilly's boss and still be good friends with Hillary Clinton.
Sorry, conservative or not, getting your business info from a Murdoch owned company seems to me to be a good way to go broke.
Put it this way, how much is your decision to buy into the stock called "Iraq War" influenced by whether you listen to NPR or Fox? Going by this reputation for fair and balanced, do you want to risk your money in the belief that Rupert Murdoch wouldn't deceive you when he can make actually make money doing so?
I'll wait a few years and see what happens to news coverage from the journal, but my knee jerk response is that assuming that Murdoch *won't* bias reporting to his advantage is naive.
Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
WTF? How is this flamebait?