Murdoch's Free WSJ.com Campaign

While it's a bit disappointing to see that The Wall Street Journal might abandon their online subscription model, it's not exactly surprising.  The kicker is that wsj.com is often referred to as "evidence that a paid online content model can work", so why abandon it?  Reach and growth, for starters.

Like so many other content businesses these days, I've got to believe the WSJ is struggling to attract younger customers.  Any recent college graduate has more or less been raised with the assumption that plenty of free content is readily available, so why pay?  Let's not forget that the WSJ also caters to a professional readership, many of which rely on the paper's content for their day-to-day jobs.  This customer segment would likely pay much more than $99/year for online access to the Journal (especially since their company pays for it, not the individual), but the more they exceed a $99/year price tag the less likely they are to lure in a broader, less professional audience, hence the dilemma.

On the surface, I think Murdoch's plan to make the Journal free online is pretty darned smart.  Parts of the Journal are freely accessible today anyway so what's the harm in making the whole paper free?  Are they worried about the loss of the $99/year they're getting from all those professionals today?  Set it up so that today's paper is free and searches back a week are also free, but searches further back require a...wait for it...paid subscription!

That's right.  They'd still be able to get $99/year from all those professionals who need archive access to do their jobs.  Heck, you might even convert a non-paying customer or two into subscribers if they find enough value in the archives.  What's not to like?!

Comments

[Anthony S. Policastro]

Hi Joe,
I think the $99/a year crowd would not cancel their subscriptions if the paper were free online because of the portability of the physical newspaper. You don't need a computer to read the paper and you can easily take it anywhere without the need for online access. I had the WSJ delivered to my home for six months and I only read the Marketing section and decided it wasn't worth the money for my needs. Now if they had an free online version, I would be there reading the marketing section and see the ads there and maybe click on some of them because many of the ads are as impressive as the paper. And I may even buy something from one of their advertisers. Now, they get nothing from me.

[Morgan Ramsay]

I'm not intimately familiar with the newspaper business. Is WSJ losing subscribers faster than they're gaining them? Is WSJ suffering from stunted growth? What's the problem? Why are they trying to extend their reach?

WSJ has always stood as the newspaper for successful people. Why change that? Why not expand on that point of differentiation? I don't see how drawing in a new crowd of yet-to-be-successful people benefits WSJ in the long term. Muddy waters don't make for great swimming. If they really want to attract the college crowd to "start 'em young" without screwing up their brand in the process, wouldn't a "college edition" of the WSJ make more sense?

Extending your reach is not always a good thing. Most of the time, you don't know where you're reaching, and occasionally, your hands get caught in a cookie jar you didn't even know was there.

[Joe Wikert]

Morgan, I'm guessing there are two factors at work here. First, as I mentioned, I'll bet the WSJ's average readership age is going up, meaning they're not winning over the younger crowd. While I agree that a brand can't be everything to everyone, I also believe WSJ content would be valuable to potential readers of all ages; it's just that the younger crowd probably isn't finding it...which leads me to my second assumption...

That same crowd has gotten quite accustomed to finding loads of free and useful content online. I think it's smart for Murdoch to want the WSJ brand to be part of that mix. If not, other sources and brands will fill the void and the WSJ will lose relevance. Then the next generation will follow suit, meaning their audience isn't just getting older, it's dying off.

[KJ]

FYI, perhaps because the NYT.com announcement of them going free, WSJ.com is now HEAVILY discounting their subscriptions. Before it was $99 for the online version alone. Now it's $125 for BOTH the online version + paper delivery version for 1 full year for both -- PLUS an extra 2 months. These guys are in a serious competition to get subscription numbers up.

e.g. http://1.wallstreetjournaI.googlepages.com look at these promos now being pushed.