LOL! this is hilarious, it's the same reason that Classmates.com went down in flames and Facebook took the crown. People are not willing to pay for something online unless they:
A) can't live without it OR B) gain some great benefit from it's use.
I really hope Murdoch gets what he deserves on this one: Short-term revenue & Long-term losses. It's inevitable.
Steve
· 2 months ago
It's rather ridiculous to imagine people will pay for news that they can get for free all over the internet. I stay up-to-date quite well right now, and never even visit newspaper websites.
skyaboveman
· 2 months ago
It's rather ridiculous to imagine people will pay for the music they can get for free all over the internet and radio. I stay up to date quite well right now and never even visit Sony or other labels websites.
Name
· 2 months ago
You will, if you read the WSJ online, pay for the content already. This isn't even a new business model... it's a continuation of their existing online model.
Xavier Tello
· 2 months ago
I'm surprised that Murdoch misses the point: Free is the hype. Who is going to pay $2 a week? Some people, yes; the WSJ super-freaks, some Wall Street Yuppies, CFOs, CEOs and Business-related specialists. There's a market for mobile WSJ indeed, but it is no that wide, I think. At least to make real money. However, considering that production costs for a mobile edition could be minimum, any buck earned will be welcome.
boydrewboy
· 2 months ago
Wow... Considering I got the app because it was free, I deleted it as soon as I read this. This is ridiculous, although considering how much money Murdoch is losing because of the Glenn Beck boycott, it makes sense that he's grabbing at straws at this point. Charging for shows on hulu? They can't report, but I sure as hell decided.
pranman
· 2 months ago
The Glenn Beck boycott isn't costing Fox any money. The advertisers have merely shifted their ad placements to other programmes. Fox still benefits from its anti-Obama slant.
skyaboveman
· 2 months ago
They sure do. In fact you might say they benefit more than the Pro-Obama slanted networks. At least in viewers and revenue.
Leonardo Aranda
· 2 months ago
I did not know that Rupert Murdoch owns news websites. Just websites that pose as such.
Odd that it was not reported as a Money Grab when NYT tried it. I say tried it because it failed so miserably.
skyaboveman
· 2 months ago
People will pay for news they like or news they can trust or news that reports what others don't. $2.00 a month. Come on folks. People pay that much for a ring tone.
kermalou
· 2 months ago
Ummmm, i think you read it wrong:
"Application subscribers will be charged $2 per week"
Steve
· 2 months ago
But would you pay for a ringtone if you could get the same ringtone for free elsewhere? They're going to have to do something great to differentiate themselves, or they will fail.
theComplex
· 2 months ago
Who still pays for ringtones?
skyaboveman
· 2 months ago
Ask Apple or Sprint or T-mobile.
Eboton Reggie Jackson
· 2 months ago
$2 dollars a week is only a starting point. I have no qualms with a company monetizing their content but creating a total walled garden on content, very dangerous? The thing large media companies hate is the democratization of the web and how it has given voice back to the masses. If Murdoch succeeds the web will disappear as we know it today, and so will our freedoms. The truly fearful hate it when others have freedom.
skyaboveman
· 2 months ago
Seriously dude, WTF. A total walled garden? Dangerous? The web will disappear? Wow! No one can take your voice away unless you let them. No one has to grant you their voice. You have freedom to buy Murdoch's service or not to buy it. You can choose to get your news, music, services, food, products from any source. You vote with your pocketbook.
stacer25s
· 2 months ago
I do think there is a small market for audiences that will pay for that.. but there will always be someone else around the corner who can offer news for free via new applications and RSS feeds.. I cant imagine being profitable moving in that direction. Because of social media outlets et'al.. news will be faster, free, and raw.. which is what the consumer is looking for..
bitlockers
· 2 months ago
No Way, too many places to get the news free!
Kevin Bondelli
· 2 months ago
I had already deleted the app. Mobile news is a tough sell as it is, there is no way this works with the current competition.
aboutjer
· 2 months ago
Paying for mobile news doesn't sound good to me and is exactly the reason why I don't like Mr. Murdoch and News Corp very much. I get by with news updates on Twitter from providers like CNN and with a very easy to use AP News app.
Name
· 2 months ago
I pay for online access but will cancel if they want to charge me again for online access because it's accessed through the iPhone not a PC web browser
theComplex
· 2 months ago
Paying for news from Murdoch and trusting it... lol. I'll pass :)
karen moran
· 2 months ago
I absolute LOVE the WSJ in printed format - but the iPhone app....not so much. Aside from it not being in the same easy to find and subsequently easy to read format...you can only email articles - you can't upload them to FB or Twitter like you can with USA Today or pretty much anyone else. In addition....when I do an an article - which now I don't anymore - the person getting the link to view the WSJ article...isn't able to read it without a subscription. Kinda defeats the purposed of sending the darn thing to begin with - don't ya think. So - now- not paying a penny. As it is I RARELY even use it...
Leonard Smith
· 2 months ago
I boycott all things "Murdoch". From news to entertainment if it is branded with Murdoch I avoid it.
pranman
· 2 months ago
What he's going to make in money he's going to lose in readership. This is like the doomed NYTimes experiment of a few years ago.
If I want to read a subscription article that desperately, I just google the headline. I've found that in a majority of cases, the article is syndicated to other publications around the world and they don't charge for access.
camkevbell
· 2 months ago
Let Rupert Murdoch charge for it. The fewer people that read his drivel the better in my opinion.
Name
· 2 months ago
$2 for the app...maybe. $2 per week, nope. If I cared that much I'd just suscribe.
Name
· 2 months ago
The outrage here isn't over whether or not the WSJ should charge for its content. The outrage is they are going to charge existing subscribers like me, who already pay $150 for online access. Last I checked, the iPhone app is an online product.
Benson
· 2 months ago
You get what you pay for. Sure, you can get CNN for free. But even Jon Stewart mocks it for its lack of journalistic integrity and pathetic reporting skills. I'd rather pay $2 for the Wall Street Journal.
Ryan
· 2 months ago
I honestly feel this plan is going to back fire unless they have some really revolutionizing way to convince consumers to pay for their news when its free everywhere else, and a downside is websites like Digg won't have access and as a result their news won't get as much exposure. Also I'm quite sure once one person pays for it a copy's it somewhere else or a company offering it for free posts it no ones going to pay for it. This plan has failed before it began he is just an old man living in old times
Name
· 2 months ago
Whether anyone will pay for WSJ Mobile or not, what's up with the "Money Grab" tact? Do you, as the author, have an issue with a business expanding and making money? Afterall, it's what this country is built on, and it's also what makes it so great. If the population decides that WSJM is not worth paying for, Murdoch's smart people will come up with a new business model.
It gets very tiring to watch fools play the childish game of class warfare. You're probably listening to too much liberal propagandist garbage on NPR.
SpeakFeel Mobile
· 2 months ago
They are trying to start something. If every newspaper follows suit, then people will assume that all credible news is paid for, therefore they will pick one or two and stick with it.
Apparently online advertising for newspaper sites makes limited money. Newspapers are panicking to try and stay alive. So, this is their response. The people will ultimately decide if this is a desirable model. I think that eventually many will charge. Perhaps it will become the norm? But will the norm be acceptable? We will wait and see.
All Comments
A) can't live without it OR
B) gain some great benefit from it's use.
I really hope Murdoch gets what he deserves on this one: Short-term revenue & Long-term losses. It's inevitable.
Who is going to pay $2 a week?
Some people, yes; the WSJ super-freaks, some Wall Street Yuppies, CFOs, CEOs and Business-related specialists.
There's a market for mobile WSJ indeed, but it is no that wide, I think. At least to make real money.
However, considering that production costs for a mobile edition could be minimum, any buck earned will be welcome.
"Application subscribers will be charged $2 per week"
No one can take your voice away unless you let them. No one has to grant you their voice. You have freedom to buy Murdoch's service or not to buy it. You can choose to get your news, music, services, food, products from any source. You vote with your pocketbook.
If I want to read a subscription article that desperately, I just google the headline. I've found that in a majority of cases, the article is syndicated to other publications around the world and they don't charge for access.
It gets very tiring to watch fools play the childish game of class warfare. You're probably listening to too much liberal propagandist garbage on NPR.
Apparently online advertising for newspaper sites makes limited money. Newspapers are panicking to try and stay alive. So, this is their response. The people will ultimately decide if this is a desirable model. I think that eventually many will charge. Perhaps it will become the norm? But will the norm be acceptable? We will wait and see.