WSJ Newsstand Price Goes To $2 On July 28
- Thread starter Ben_Hecht
- Start date
Mizzougrad96
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2002
- Messages
- 56,139
I actually don't think it will hurt them that much.
P
PeteyPirate
Guest
The WSJ is the bottled water of journalism.
Mizzougrad96
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2002
- Messages
- 56,139
FirstDownPirates said:
That's an outstanding comparison.
It also doesn't hurt that virtually everybody who gets the paper can either expense it, write it off, or is too rich to care.
P
PeteyPirate
Guest
goalmouth said:
Really? They figured out how to charge people more for what others give away or charge very little for. That's what water bottlers did. Of course it's simplistic, but explain to me how it's ignorant.
BYH
Active Member
FirstDownPirates said:
It's not simplistic, but I think it's wrong. Newspapers are killing most of their financial coverage and the WSJ is aimed at a very niche, targeted audience. It's never been for people who want the stock tables and a business story or two. In fact, isn't the WSJ the standard bearer in figuring out how to get people to pay for online content?
It's like bottled water only if most of the taps have been shut off.
2muchcoffeeman
Well-Known Member
Still free online.
When will newspapers realize that the online product is not the "supplement" to the main dead-tree product?
When will newspapers realize that the online product is not the "supplement" to the main dead-tree product?
Songbird: My guess is that the price increased because of costs, gas, and other adjustments related to the higher energy prices. If the area is growing or the product is promoted better, I could see how sales could be up. I think 35 to 50 cents wouldn't make that much difference because you probably fished two quarters or a dollar out of your pocket anyway.
sirvaliantbrown
Member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 782
2muchcoffeeman said:
Hmm? It's not.
2muchcoffeeman said:
Yeah, not really. Pretty much the whole WSJ online package is behind a pay-wall, and it's got an excellent website.
And, if you think the WSJ = bottled water (i.e. same as comes from the tap, just in a fancy package), you clearly don't read it. It's the best daily business publication in the country by a very wide margin, and one of the three or four best-written papers of any kind.
2muchcoffeeman
Well-Known Member
sirvaliantbrown said:
Hmm? It is.
http://online.wSportsJournalists.com/public/us
They have enough online for free that I don't feel the need to pay extra.
Joe Williams
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 4,846
If the new cover price gets matched by a commensurate bump in subscription renewal cost, I won't be re-upping when our current deal runs out. It already is pushing it, in terms of annual price. And now it -- the vaunted, f---ing Wall Street Journal -- offers up Q&As with one of the Olsen twins as part of its Murdochized approach.
STLIrish said:
I disagree with the part of it being among the three or four best-written papers of any kind.
Before the Foster Winans "Heard on the Street" controversy in 1983 and during much of the 1970s, the Wall Street Journal was a very poor newspaper for very rich people. For those of you who don't know, Foster Winans wrote the Heard on the Street column. In his book (I can't remember the title) he acknowledged that when he was hired 18 months before doing the column, he had little knowledge of business, much less Wall Street. This is who they put on one of the most important columns in the paper. In the 1970s, Columbia Journalism Review did a story on how there was stuff in Journal articles which were rewritten press releases. Because of the Winans scandal, the WSJ was embarrassed into improving.
Fast forward to the first decade of the new millenium. The WSJ has some good writers and some people who know their industry. When Laura Landro did media, she "got it". However, in recent years I could recall reading some weak stuff. Tom Herman used to do taxes and I would read the column because that is one of my interests. When I read it, he would write the same things over and over again, quoting the same experts.
Stefan Fatsis somehow became the official expert on the business of sport. Maybe an expert to people who don't know anything. He once wrote that Time's balance sheet (Ted Turner had been involved in the merger) showed the value of Turner's two Atlanta teams in basketball and hockey showed a value of $110-million. Fatsis wrote that since the Hawks were worth $110-mil, that meant the Atlanta Thrashers of the NHL had zero or negative value. Within the week, the Atlanta Hawks were sold for $250-million. The valuation on an annual report is not always and not usually market value. If you remember intermediate or advanced accounting, you would know that. It was a foolish thing for Fatsis to write; I will acknowledge I liked his book, Word Freak, but in his role as a sports business reviewer, he really doesn't tell you anything a lot of people don't know.
