WSJ.com Is Proof That People Will Pay For Online Content

Rupert Murdoch predicted The Wall Street Journal’s online subscription revenue will increase by $300 million per year over the next several years.
Murdoch said at an investors conference on Wednesday that he initially had high expectations for the online newspaper as a free offering for consumers worldwide, but he reversed himself after looking at the financials.
“I changed my mind totally,” he said at the conference.
“We’re moving away from consumer advertising in traditional, old media and moving to subscription models and new media,” said Murdoch.
Which makes me wonder if blogs–this one, and others–could charge for content. Probably not. The WSJ is essential reading. That’s how they get away with the subscription model. But so is The New York Times, Washington Post and other papers; yet; they rely on ad-based revenue, as do blogs.
I have a feeling Rupe is on to something here. Whether others can or will follow his lead, remains to be seen.

About David Burn

Co-founder and editor of AdPulp. I wrote my first ad for a political candidate when I was 17 years old. She won her race and I felt the seductive power of advertising for the first time. I worked for seven agencies in five states before launching my own practice in 2009. Today, I am head of brand strategy and creative at Bonehook in Portland, Oregon.

Comments

  1. The Journal is proof that people 35+ who make 6 figures+ will pay for online content.

  2. Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner! Not to mention the conformist mentality that dominates the investment types. They don’t take each other seriously if they aren’t all eating, breathing and shitting the exact same stuff.

  3. @copyranter – exactly, and that’s the demo I, and many others, “sell to,” or write for, as the case may be