Comments on: WSJ.com’s barbell strategy

By: quantacide

quantacide — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 21:47:17 +0000

Post-BSC sabbatical, I renewed the WSJ — just before they started adding things like the Sports section. The paper has dropped off a cliff in terms of its usefulness.

Still there is that every once and a while article that I only read while thumbing through the print edition, and that snags me. For this, and only this, do I keep the print edition, thumb through on the way to work, and then get everything else from the Pink Paper. (Btw, they have a fantastic online edition; Google “FT Electronic Edition” and pledge your faux-academia.)

By: Brad Ford

Brad Ford — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 20:33:37 +0000

I subcribe to WSJ.Com for the reason you mentioned – convenience. For relatively little money, I can find what I want quickly. If they raise price, I’ll cancel and get it online for free.

By: SelenesMom

SelenesMom — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 18:10:49 +0000

I couldn’t agree with this post more. I work in finance, but off Wall Street. I used to love the WSJ, especially reading the A-heads when I was riding the subway, but when I started getting most of my news on-line a few years ago, I just couldn’t see paying $80 or whatever for something that was no longer What Everyone I Knew Was Reading — especially since if there really was a Must-Read, someone would surely send me a copy or (eek) hand me a copy of the paper WSJ.

I wonder if other people have worked in offices where paper WSJs pile up yellowing and unread just because they are someone’s security blanket.

By: Ian Kemmish

Ian Kemmish — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 18:03:29 +0000

“When people subscribe to wsj.com, they do it because out of a desire for convenience”

Or maybe just a desire for the occasional grammatically correct sentence? For Pity’s sake man, turning in shoddy work like this is just plain discourtesy.

By: Tom Burton

Tom Burton — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 16:35:33 +0000

One morning, sipping coffee, I switched to the WSJ tab on my browser, to find it hung up on a display ad that had blocked the home page until I took action. I cancelled that morning. I refuse to pay and then be accosted by an ad. (Yes, I avoid movie theaters and most DVDs for the same reason.) I switched to Reuters that day and have not vewed WSJ on-line since.

By: Robert Bainbridge

Robert Bainbridge — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 16:01:47 +0000

Interesting article – almost entirely on point.

I was a very early WSJ subscriber many years ago – about $80 for a year. This year’s price increase represents a 50% increase over the past two years ($99 to $159). I canceled my subscription.

The WSJ folks seem to have missed the notion of value – properly priced product that fills a need. The product is good but not so good that it is worth 50% more in a year when the economy and market are down.

My view is that management is either out of touch or focused on premium margins. Tales of geese and golden eggs come to mind.