Filed under: Business, Finance, Internet, Web services
WSJ.com for free? We'll think about it
Should news be free? DLS thinks so, but some major media outlets think not.News Corp, the new owners of the Wall Street Journal online at WSJ.com, still believe that users should pay for their news. However, a lack of subscribers and a realization that online content is all about the free availability has began investigating plans to turn things around.
Rupert Murdoch, News Corps head honcho said that his staff is looking closely at granting free access to the Wall Street Journals website, citing that it is a very expensive thing to do, but could pay off in the long-term.
Big media outlets still don't get it do they? Great free content online equals happy loyal viewers and more traffic, thus more ad dollars. The pay for content thing doesn't really work in today's world anymore.
Do any DLS readers pay for content online?
So, just how good at time waster games are you? Think you've got the stuff? Well, The World's Hardest Game 2.0 doesn't think you do.
Yes, amazingly, it's possible to have a sequel to a game called "The World's Hardest Game". It doesn't seem logically possible, since if the first one was actually the world's hardest, how could another one come along and share the moniker? It made me doubt the name in the first place. That is, until I tried the game.
The mechanics of the game are very simple. You are a small red square, ...
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Gardiner Westbound said 12:49PM on 8-09-2007
The New York Times Co. plans to stop charging Internet users for access to its columnists and Op-Ed pieces on a section of its Web site known as TimesSelect, The New York Post reported on Tuesday.
Reply
Halo2Master said 1:49PM on 8-09-2007
"However, a lack of subscribers and a realization that online content is all about the free availability has began investigating plans to turn things around."
You might want to check your grammar on this one. The subjects seem to be "a lack of subscribers and a realization...". How can a lack and a realization begin investigating anything? Also, you never use "has began". It is either "began", in the past tense, or "has begun".
Just thought I would help you out. Feel free to send any six-figure editing job offers to my email address.
Reply
Todd said 2:41PM on 8-09-2007
@Halo2Master
The grammatically correct version of Download Squad is available by paid subscription only. Thank you.
Reply
Chris Gilmer said 2:54PM on 8-09-2007
LOL thanks Halo2Master and Todd! you rock!
I apologize, In an effort to get the scoop to readers in a flash, some grammar issues do slip through.
Reply
Fred Thompson said 3:50PM on 8-09-2007
Yup, I pay for some content. Cooks Illustrated has pay-only access to the older content and they don't have any advertising in any of their print, TV or online content. Rush Limbaugh is pay-only for the vast majority of content and it's ad supported. Stratfor is pay-only. I don't know about left-wing political pay sites. There are a ton of pay-only porn sites.
Reply
Ian said 4:59PM on 8-09-2007
That would be quite a reversal. Up until recently a subscription to WSJ online also gave one access to Barons online. Then they deducted it and offered Bol for an extra fee.
Reply
Ken said 6:34PM on 8-09-2007
I wish NYT.com provided free access to the Times Reader. That would be sweet. But probably never happen.
Reply
thecatt said 7:23PM on 8-09-2007
The last thing I wanted when reading the Journal is more ads. I subscribe (and pay for) the print and online versions because they are that good and that valuable.
People will pay for the WSJ because the content is worth it. Do you have any numbers backing up your "lack of subscribers" statement? Murdoch certainly doesn't seem to give that impression.
Reply
Myron said 10:25AM on 8-10-2007
"lack of subscribers"
I guess this is a relative statement, but the WSJ has over 800,000 paid subscribers as of the beginning of the year and is considered one of the most successful paid content sites on the web.
I subscribe to the WSJ online. Although the editorial page was already frightening, the paper itself is one of the best in the world. It pains me to see Murdoch get his 'fair and balanced' hands on it. Oh well.
Reply
eb98jdb said 10:48AM on 8-10-2007
Big media outlets don't get it?
Is there not a chance that although consumers may beless and less likely to pay for content, business consumers eg. the readers of the WSJ are only too happy to pay for content that they can rely on and make business decisions on?
Reply