Facebook Plunges Again
Tumblr 101: Tips And Tricks To Get Started
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?
Comments
10
Subscribe to commentsGardiner WestboundAug 9th 2007 12:49PM
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.
Halo2MasterAug 9th 2007 1:49PM
"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.
ToddAug 9th 2007 2:41PM
@Halo2Master
The grammatically correct version of Download Squad is available by paid subscription only. Thank you.
Chris GilmerAug 9th 2007 2:54PM
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.
Fred ThompsonAug 9th 2007 3:50PM
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.
IanAug 9th 2007 4:59PM
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.
KenAug 9th 2007 6:34PM
I wish NYT.com provided free access to the Times Reader. That would be sweet. But probably never happen.
thecattAug 9th 2007 7:23PM
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.
MyronAug 10th 2007 10:25AM
"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.
eb98jdbAug 10th 2007 10:48AM
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?