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.""

Comments

Idiots. they should have done it long ago

[unity100]

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.

Re:Idiots. they should have done it long ago

[Slashidiot]

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.

50milj and nytimes URLs

[siyavash]

$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.

Re:Are WSJ readers too dumb to use ad blockers?

[SystemFault]

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?

The Monkey

[handy_vandal]

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

Not dumb, don't care. Don't confuse the two.

[Shivetya]

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.

OpinionJournal considered harmful

[senahj]

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.