Fred Wilson suggests that Murdoch should make the WSJ Online free. Their subscriptions generate $75M annually. Fred makes a good point that if it were free, more people would read and link to it - which would drive a lot more page views - which would enable them to grow their advertising revenue.
His logic is right on. (Maybe the math isn't.) Either way, I disagree with this strategy.
Why does this need to be an either/or proposition. Why can't WSJ just start to make more and more of their articles free to read - yet keep the subscription? Who's going to notice the shades of the gray?
They have all of these paying subscriber relationship? Why throw that away?
As they make more content available for free, all they need to do is deliver more value to their current subscribers. How? There's a million ways.
- Help subscribers connect to other subscribers.
- Concierge services for subscribers
- Member only events. Or passes to events.
- Loyalty program which provides rewards from other businesses.
- Access to more detailed data.
- Help subscribers promote themselves.
- Give them polling tools and let them do market research via the website.
- Let them guide topics or articles they'd like to see written
I agree with Fred. News, data and info will all eventually be free. But, people will always pay for services, exclusivity, rewards, inclusion or involvement, etc. The WSJ has one hell of a club started. Why kill that?
These people are willing to pay to read the news. Imagine what they'd pay if they could guide what's newsworthy? Be part of the news? Simply interact with the newspeople?
Imagine the kind of services or related media business you could launch with $75M/year?
You hit the nail on the head when you suggest a two-way mode of communication between newspaper and reader.
The printing industry is in decline, in fact the only segment of this industry to post a profit is digital (I believe it is up 3% for this year, while each and every other segment was negative). More so, the newspaper industry has been through an even longer recession. A big proponent to its decline has been caused by the industry trying to save itself—namely trying to compete with new media news sources (i.e. maintaining a “competitive” web component). Rather than creating a new front to compete against others with, they need to reinforce the inherit benefits to newspapers.
Enter Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch is one of the most forward thinking people in regards to understanding the fundamental principles behind new media. His take over of the WSJ is not only going to save the WSJ, but also help save newspapers. It is interesting to note that this comes at a time where Google’s online advertising model has been applied to Print, through its AdWords system. Now, integrated into its search engine adverting, small businesses are able to advertise in national newspapers. We are integrating one of the oldest forms of news media with the newest media (think mySpace.com [also owned by Murdoch] integrating with your classifieds…same premise can be established throughout). Now that a New Media Mind is owner of an Old Medium, we will see an evolution in how newspapers will be perceived without sacrificing what a newspaper traditionally is.
More here
Posted by: lukeMV | August 02, 2007 at 08:17 AM
I think you have a great point. I'm sure WSJ doesn't want to lose all that money. On the other hand, I don't read what isn't free, so maybe they need to come up with a way for more people to read articles for free. I don't mind the ads.
Posted by: Lin | August 04, 2007 at 07:43 PM