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.""

18 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 Slashidiot · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I guess now that's the only way ahead. It is hard to support your business with only subscription revenues. First it was the NYT and now the WSJ. I think in the long run, the right business model is similar to what slashdot has right now. Offer plenty for free, get ad revenues, offer a premium for a small fee, for hardcore users.

      --
      Tis women makes us love, Tis Love that makes us sad, Tis sadness makes us drink, And drinking makes us mad.
    2. Re:Idiots. they should have done it long ago by slashchuck · · Score: 2, Informative

      "... that $50 mil buck a month ..."
      That's $50 mil bucks a year.
      --
      $sig not found
    3. 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.

    4. 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.
    5. Re:Idiots. they should have done it long ago by uniquename72 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm a conservative, too. Which is why I loathe the man for helping turn TV news into infotainment.

      Even if you agree with the right-ward slant of Fox news (and, being a conservative -- rather than a neocon -- I do not), you gotta admit, there just ain't much news there.

  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 Monkey by handy_vandal · · Score: 3, Funny

    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
  6. Works for me by dlc3007 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I would much prefer an ad-based strategy rather than subscription. Adblock works great!

  7. Why the old media still trumps the new one... by dada21 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Why the old media still trumps the new one... by hey! · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, that's the thing about the WSJ: a tradition of top notch shoe leather reporting with utterly untainted right wing editorials. It's different people doing each function, and each function serves a different purpose. The editorial position is the sizzle that sells the proverbial steak, and the journalism is the steak that gives the sales pitch its credibility.

      The big question everybody's asking is whether Murdoch is coming in with an LBO kind of mentality, looking at the WSJ as collection of unrelated profit and cost centers that can be chopped up and sold off or recombined, spinning off expensive activities like reporting so they can perish in obscurity.

      Having a new media strategy is actually a pretty positive sign. Newspapers are under financial stress, and many are responding by the journalistic equivalent of eating their seed corn. They're cutting back on expensive reporting and buying into cheap opinion. Having an aggressive, well financed strategy requires differentiating yourself from other aggressive, well financed strategies. Murdoch already has financially efficient, opinion centric media. Perhaps he is planning on using WSJ as a way to rebrand the same old stuff, but he may see this as an opportunity to get in with a contrarian strategy. As traditional news outlets become more Murdochian, he can pincer them between the rock and hard place by having products that have less journalistic content (or scruples) than the competitors, and other products with more journalistic content. If he can make both products profitable, he can leave his competitors in an untenable middle ground.

      Since the traditional paper based business is unprofitable, that means having a new media strategy.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  8. Not dumb, don't care. Don't confuse the two. by Shivetya · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  9. 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.

  10. OpinionJournal considered harmful by senahj · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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 ...
  11. Bill, Hillary, and Rupert by fm6 · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.