There seems to be a slight dis-connect between what Rupert Murdoch has said about the future of the subscription model of WSJ.com and what WSJ.com is currently reporting. Under the subject line, “Murdoch: WSJ.com Won’t Go Free,” Emily Steel blogs from Davos (it’s also a story behind the WSJ.com pay wall) the following quote from Murdoch: “‘We are going to greatly expand and improve the free part of the Wall Street Journal online, but there will still be a strong offering’ for subscribers, Mr. Murdoch said. ‘The really special things will still be a subscription service, and, sorry to tell you, probably more expensive.’”
So, wait. Did he say, “The WSJ.com Won’t Go Free”?
When I’ve blogged on this topic in the past, I have tried to be clear that it was (and is) my belief that the strategy Murdoch is telegraphing today — a blended one — would be the strategy they’d ultimately choose. I stated this precisely last August 4, when I wrote: “I predict we’ll see the doors flinging open on a major portion of the content soon. However, on certain sub-sets of highly-technical, business-critical data on the site, the cost of access will increase. In the end, the new owners will make lots more money.”
In other words, I predicted what Murdoch said today. They will greatly increase the free part of WSJ.com and charge more for business-critical, technical data. I’ll predict this today: the “greatly expanded and improved free part” of WSJ.com will look a lot like a free WSJ.com to most people who just read the news stories.
Related rexblog flashback: “How to get an RSS feed with tons of ‘free’ stories on WSJ.com“
Technorati Tags: wsj.com
January 24th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
[…] I know that there are a lot of smart people out there who believe that you can do both — one of them being Rex Hammock, who has been predicting for some time that Rupert would see the light and go for a mixed strategy. I would not claim to have the expertise in publishing that Rex has, but I do know one thing: the kind of content that newspapers produce, in virtually all cases including the esteemed WSJ, is either a commodity (in which case charging for it is nonsensical) or something with added value. In both cases I think it benefits the paper to release it into the wild. […]
January 25th, 2008 at 7:15 am
[…] Como um banho de água fria em quem defende o conteúdo gratuito na rede, Rupert Murdoch disse, em uma mesa-redonda no Fórum de Davos, que o conteúdo do The Wall Street Journal, um dos últimos ícones do conteúdo pago na rede, não será totalmente gratuito. Mas conforme revela Rex Hammonck, a frase de Murdoch foi mal intepretada. […]
January 25th, 2008 at 8:56 am
I think you’re hedging!
I think the “new free parts” will be an article or two more, and maybe some new blogs. The majority of the content will stay behind the pay wall. Wanna bet? I already won once!
http://www.fimoculous.com/archive/post-3725.cfm
January 25th, 2008 at 9:15 am
(To: Rex S.) First, I would have never bet against you on that wager you had with Jim. However, I’m not hedging: I believe the majority of the “news coverage” content and feature stories will come outside the paywall. Heck, a click on that Digg button at the bottom of the page frees any article already. So I’ll take your bet — although I don’t know exactly what it is — I believe the “free parts” will be more than simply one or two more “free articles.” I believe the “subscribers” will get access to Factiva or some other currently “premium” service. And I think, since this is a Rex vs. Rex bet, the wager should be a bottle of this.
January 25th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
A bottle of Rex Goliath it is!
So the bet is this: when Murdoch rolls out the new model, will there be a significant change in the amount of daily story content (i.e., the stories that appear in the paper) released outside the pay wall? (You: yes. Me: no.)