Does Sale Of Dow Jones Mean The End Of The Paywall?
from the freedom dept
With News Corp.’s purchase of Dow Jones now all but certain, there’s a lot of discussion about whether Rupert Murdoch will pull a Mikhail Gorbachev and tear down that (pay)wall at the Wall Street Journal. Yesterday we argued that if the Financial Times wants to raise its profile in the US, it should do just that, as a way of differentiating itself from the Journal. At this point, there’s no way of knowing whether Murdoch will make the move first and preempt Pearson (parent company of the Financial Times). You have to figure that he has other things on his mind right now than how best to monetize the Wall Street Journal online. But, seeing as part of the deal’s rationale is to bolster the credibility of Fox’s forthcoming business channel, it makes sense to make the Journal’s content more widely available. Another possibility, put forward by the founder of MarketWatch (also a Dow Jones property), is to tie MarketWatch in with Fox, leaving the Journal as it is, a premium offering for non-retail investors. But, realistically, the MarketWatch brand doesn’t carry near the value that the Journal does — if Murdoch is really intent on bolstering its business channel, it has to do it by leveraging the Journal.
Comments on “Does Sale Of Dow Jones Mean The End Of The Paywall?”
Insightful article
Too bad the discussion is going to be ruined by the anti-fox, anti-republican nut jobs. CNN and New York times seems just as slanted to me as Fox must seem to you. Realize that you nutballs all have a prism you see things through that rarely centers anywhere close to common sense.
I just realized I started the downward spiral of this article. My bad.
Re: Insightful article
Being anti-Republican doesn’t make you a nut job. As a matter of fact, it show that one can think on their own. The same goes for anti-Democrats as well.
That's Just What Rupert Will Do
The forthcoming Fox business channel would do well without the WSJ, but there’s no question that having it in the family will give a luster to Fox that could never have been built on its own.
I can’t imagine why FT wants anything to do with the US market. WSJ has owned it for decades and US based investors and business people only read FT as an aside.
There’s no question in my mind that much of Murdoch’s desire to own WSJ is to kick the New York Times in the ass. The circulation of NYT has seen a huge drop in recent years, and it’s not all the internet’s fault. The politics at the Times has a politically correct, pro-left tilt and WSJ readers are just not the type to buy their garbage.
This deal could very well be a huge nail in the coffin of the Times. Let me go out on a limb and say that within a year to eighteen months there will be a decided shift towards the political center and right at the Times and that can only be a good thing.
Future Headlines
Halliburton Contracted to Govern U.S., Democrats Need Not Apply
Dow Falls 200 Points – Gay-Marriage To Blame
Dow Jones Renamed Ronald Reagan Index
Bush Military Record Soars Above Reproach
Cheney Guest Editorial: Alaska Wildlife Owes U.S. Debt; Time To Pay The Pipeline
Iraq Weather Always Sunni, Warm
War: What Is It Good For? See pages A3-A36
Barak Osama Campaigns In Terrorist Training Camp
What is a "paywall?"
This article would be improved if the author actually explained what a “paywall” is. Or if the link took one to a place that explained it.
The Journal and the Paywall
The Journal is my daily paper; dead tree version delivered to my door, plus I pay for online access.
I’d love to get online access free, but businesses are entitled to be paid for their product. There is also the argument that free online access can only dampen paid subscriptions to the print edition.
Not to mention that expecting free access to the labors of the Journal’s excellent staff smacks ever so slightly of an entitlement mentality — never mind what it should cost; I’m entitled to get it for free.
As to what it should cost? Whatever the market will bear. As the ads say, “your results may differ.” That is, what I consider reasonable (about $50 per year with a paid print subscription), you may find outrageous. That’s entirely up to you.
Don’t like the free market philosophy that a business may charge what it is able to for its product? You probably are reading the wrong paper to begin with.
Makeover needed at WSJ
I agree that they need to make it free.
Check out my thoughts at
http://abhishek.tiwari.com/2007/08/02/wsj-its-makeover-time/