WSJ.com Is Nowheresville

Adam L. Penenberg an assistant professor at New York University, writing in Wired says, “It might be hard to believe that The Wall Street Journal is in danger of becoming irrelevant, but it is.
Because you have to subscribe to access both current news articles and the archive, the Journal is leaving only a faint footprint in cyberspace. I googled “Enron” — an issue the Journal covered exhaustively, and which two of its reporters even wrote a book about — and not one article appeared within the first 25 pages (250 results.)”

FacebookTwitterGoogle+PinterestLinkedInRedditStumbleUponEmailDiggShare
About David Burn

Native Nebraskan in the Pacific Northwest. Brand builder at Bonehook. Co-founder and editor of AdPulp. Contributor to The Content Strategist. Believer in Gossage, Bernbach and Clow. Doer of the things written about herein.

  • clyde

    Irrelevant? I think that’s called “exclusive”.
    Why give it away for free, when you can charge for it. The WSJ is able to do that, unlike many other papers, for it covers the business of business while the rest of the world covers drive-by shootings and girls getting naked.

  • http://www.johnniemoore.com/blog/archives/000780.php Johnnie Moore’s Weblog

    WSJ going nowhere?

    Good spot by David at AdPulp:Adam L. Penenberg an assistant professor at New York University, writing in Wired says, “It might be hard to believe that The Wall Street Journal is in danger of becoming irrelevant, but it is. Because…

  • http://www.gapingvoid.com hugh macleod

    “Exclusive” is 99% “Irrelevant”, as anybody who spent more than 3 weeks in PR can testify.
    Don’t tell me, you’re going to argue “OH NO but it’s that extra 1% that makes ALL the difference!”
    The blind leading the blind. What fun for them both.