Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Murdoch's New Internet Strategy for the WSJ

Posted by Zonk on from the strange-days-for-the-paper dept.

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.""

10 of 62 comments (clear)

  1. Idiots. they should have done it long ago by unity100 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Idiots. they should have done it long ago by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      This hasn't always been the case. Recall what happened to online ad rates 5 years ago. A steady subscription model can be quite preferable to wildly fluctuating internet ad rates. Kind of like how a CD making 5% can be better than junk bonds that might make 15%...or lose a ton.

      Presumably the ad rates have risen enough to make the risk worth it. But I don't think this was simply incompetence on their part. I look forward to it, as I like reading the journal but am too cheap to subscribe.

    2. Re:Idiots. they should have done it long ago by hey! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Say what you will about Murdoch (I like him - I'm a conservative), he's a helluva businessman. Although more needs to be done, he's thankfully changed the face of news in this country.


      You realize that those two statements are not logically related, right? Just because a news organization takes a step in the right (that is to say correct) direction businesswise doesn't mean that is a step in the right direction for news.
      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  2. Are WSJ readers too dumb to use ad blockers? by SystemFault · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is Murdoch counting on the proposition that WSJ readers too dumb to use ad blockers like the Fireox/Adblock Pro combination?

    1. Re:Are WSJ readers too dumb to use ad blockers? by SystemFault · · Score: 3, Insightful

      First, let me apologize for my sloppy typing and perhaps for an over-generalization.

      I have no objection to a *moderate* amount of advertising. I also have no objection to the Loch Ness monster, Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy.

      Let's face it: most advertisement supported sites attempt to shove a hundred times as many bits of bandwidth consuming advertisements as compared to actual news text. That, along with pop up/pop under windows, cookie madness, and tracking -- well, is it really any surprise when consumers take measures to protect themselves?

  3. 50milj and nytimes URLs by siyavash · · Score: 4, Insightful

    $50milj is nothing for him. He rather open it up to masses so he can "reach out" with "right" information to them. ;)

    Also, I know it's offtopic but can /. please stop using URLs directed to nytimes? They all seem to need to login.

  4. Depends on how he plays... by cthulu_mt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  5. The only case by jbolden · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:The only case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      A freely available WSJ could really change American media culture back to being one involving research and large staffs of knowledgeable people.

      Or, knowing Murdoch, he's just whoring the good name of the WSJ out for a few years to get some value out of his investment. The quality of the journalism is irrelevant to him.

  6. Re:So what by nomadic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A vitriolic, nationalistic, jingoistic, oversimplified propaganda sheet.

    The hilarious thing is he's nationalistic and jingoistic about more than one country. Didn't think that was possible.