A no messing around guide to the coolest things to eat, drink and do in Vancouver and beyond. Community. Not clickbait.

Old Media Fail: Pay The WSJ To Read About NYT Charging Users?

fth

There’s some irony at work here. The dinosaurific Wall Street Journal has posted a story about The New York Times establishing a pay wall for its stories. Trouble is, you have to pay to read it. At some point the old media is going to figure this whole internet thing out and kick all our asses to the curb. Just not yet.

There are 4 comments

  1. i’m not sure how ironic that is, unless it’s a critical piece (which i’m guessing it wouldn’t be)

  2. In fairness, the notion that all media will be free in the future seems patently false. Theoretically the WSJ is a specialized market and it *should* be able to charge for content.

    Remember that before it was integrated into the milquetoast National Post the Financial Post was a standalone financial newspaper that had a *viable subscription base.* That is to say that enough people felt that FINANCIAL news only was worth paying for.

    The notion that all information is free inevitably leads to a lowest common denominator effect. Online information comes with a variety of cost models, ranging from:
    – Free, which generally consists of guys like Sean Orr (or myself) ranting with little value, research or actual information behind it
    – Non-target ad supported, which is essentially the same as mass media of old
    – Targeted ad supported, generally requiring registration in exchange for free content which may then be targeted based on the registration information (Facebook fits this model, somewhat)
    – Subscription services, of which there are a LOT more than this article’s dismissive attitude would suggest although you may not know about them if you’re not in their target market.

    So…will the WSJ model work? I doubt it, but that’s mostly because the WSJ no longer offers anything unique enough to compel enough people to pay. Simply put, through the roaring 90’s too many places were offering the same coverage as the WSJ with additional content that had broader appeal.

    To suggest they haven’t figured out the model yet is perhaps inaccurate though. My sense is that we’re entering a phase of experimenting with different models online again, as we did about 10 years ago. The metrics and dynamics are different this time, but the experimentation will be similar.

    I’m going to watch my movie again.

  3. Oh, I don’t think it should all be “free”, especially the standalone titans and a few trade rags. Variety, for example, seems to be doing just fine charging for content. The post was addressing the idiocy at work charging for a story about charging for a story. I think publishers and editors can better pick and choose which features are free and web ready and which ones are worth making readers pay for.

  4. This is most likely related to Murdochs ongoing attempts to stoke rivalry between the WSJ, now also a ny-city daily with lowered ad rates, and the NYTimes.