Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

WSJ on iPad for $17.99 a month

The WSJ and others have and will continue to adjust online pricing and content access policies over time. The same will happen with iPad versions. Anyone who points to a given periodical and its current pricing/access policy and says "see they're doing fine" simply hasn't been paying attention long enough. They're finding their way, and pricing/access is part of that. Most of the larger periodicals have adjusted pricing/access - sometimes radically - yearly if not more frequently.

On the whole, for better or worse, I predict lower long term pricing than the large media companies seem to at this point.

When you can get almost any mag delivered in hard copy for <$1 per issue with a 1 or 2 year subscription, I think they're going to have a hard time convincing folks to pay too much more than that on the iPad unless they are completely ad free or so 'enhanced' that we perceive them to truly add value.
 
mstrze said:
Greater amount of content and likely more dynamic content?
Click to expand...

I can't see them releasing iPad-specific content, it's financial news, most of their users won't be on an Ipad. And as for more dynamic - they already have videos and interactive charts all over the site. And they have announced that they are working on an HTML5 version of the site.
 
In their defense, if they determine this is too much to charge, they can always lower the price.

If they charged too little (left money on the table), it's very difficult to raise prices.

This is how many of these things go - start with a high price, and lower it till you find the sweet spot. I have no plans to pay that much (or anything really) for the WSJ. I might be willing to pay like $5/month for my local paper though.
 
I still can’t understand why newspapers can’t figure this out. Here’s what you do:

  • If someone already subscribes to the paper version of your newspaper, they get an on-line subscription free with it. This includes the following:
    • Subscription to the e-edition on devices like iPad, etc.
    • Full access to your website,
    • Ability to search your archives,
    • A login & password that use your real name (possibly 2+ sub-accounts for households)
      • This login is the only way you can post comments to articles online, and your name & town will be included in those comments – just like the traditional “letters to the editor”. This will improve the quality & tone of the on-line comments – improving their value.
      • Via your account, you can easily see all the comments you’ve posted, along with replies to those comments from other subscribers. You even get the ability to post your own editorials & comment on other people’s editorials.

  • If someone wants the e-edition only, they get all of the above, just no physical paper. The price they pay is the same as a regular subscription, minus the overhead costs of physical delivery (printing & delivering the paper). In other words, it ought to be a lot cheaper.

  • If your subscription “runs-out”, your account information goes “on-hold”, and you lose access. But, you can resubscribe at any time to re-activate your account.

  • Give people the ability to buy small chunks of e-subscriptions if they want. This is similar to buying a single issue of a paper. Their account information will be “active” during that period (maybe a week, a month… or even a day).

  • Your public site should show just “teasers” of the articles – like the first intro paragraph, with a “subscribe to read more”. The main purpose of your public site is as an enticement/advertisement to get people to subscribe.

  • For some articles, you’ll want to show the entire article, along with comments from subscribers. These articles should be easily noticeable on your home page. This serves the following purposes:
    • It will allow you to more widely disseminate news that is essential as a public service – i.e. if there is some huge story about a critical issue, people will be able to read it.
    • Allows you to re-publish content from other news services if available (i.e. stories people could read free elsewhere anyway).
    • It will give non-subscribers a reason to keep visiting your site, see the features that subscribers get, and hopefully entice them to subscribe. This is similar to someone flipping through the physical paper at a newsstand… reading the front page article while they’re getting coffee.

People often say “well, news is free now”… that might be true of national/international news. But, if I want local news, I have to get it locally. It’s only free if the local news outlets make it free… which they’ve stupidly been doing for years now… to their demise (they've been hoping that on-line advertising would give them big $... not).

To further sweeten the pot, subscribers could be offered perks from advertisers - like discount cards/coupons to use at their stores. The on-line editions of papers would contain all the same advertising as the paper version. People could ignore or read it, just like they do with the paper version.

The above model will allow for a transition from a paper to electronic delivery, without throwing away the value that is a subscription. There are all kinds of things in local papers that are very valuable to local readers – sports, entertainment, news. People are used-to paying for physical papers. There’s nothing magical about electronic delivery that should make this “free”… it should be cheaper, but not free. People will pay for things they value – and they value what they pay for. Make the content of the paper good, make the layout clean (most newspaper websites frankly suck), and people will value that - and pay for it.
 
I have a WSJ subscription. It includes daily newspaper delivery, internet access to the full web site and full site access on my iPhone,

I will not pay an additional $17.99 per month for iPad access. I would consider an additional $5.00 per month.

We'll have to wait and see what the actual price is and what is included
 
stridemat said:
especially as you can get the news for free from other websites (BBC in the UK)
Click to expand...

the WSJ is considered the bible for hundreds of thousands of people. specially in NY and other metropolitan cities in the US.

you think wallstreet types care if they spend $17.99/month on the wsj? don't think so.
 
And it's a DOA product at that price point.

No more than $9.99. Anything else is going to be a very hard sale.
 
The Wall Street Journal already charges a subscription for its web-based content, right? And they're apparently doing okay. So this might be a change in the price-point, but not in the basic concept.

The New York Times (my own daily news source of choice) is also said to be moving toward a subscription model, and the range of prices being debated kind of straddles this 17.99 figure (ranging from a low of $10 to a high of $20-30).

It's all but certain that A-list periodicals like the Condé Nast magazines, which are starting iPad editions on a trial basis in the next few months, will charge whatever the market will bear.

Some posters in this thread have noted, correctly, that many readers will demur from paying subscription fees because they can get their news, commentary, etc., for free on the web. I'd say this is true only to a certain point.

For many people, premium content (like, say, The New Yorker magazine, or the WSJ for that matter) is worth paying for. I personally see no substitute for the depth and range and quality of the New York Times. I will agonize quite a bit, but I suspect I'll end up plunking down the asking price. (I willingly laid out $50/year a couple of years ago for the now-ended "Times Select" service, rather than give up maintenance dose of Paul Krugman.)

We may be a situation similar, in many respects, to the early days of cable TV. "Why should I pay for television when I can watch it for free?" many people said. But look at where we are today.
 
I don't think I would. I'm more of an Instapaper kinda guy. So much free news content out there, I don't see the point in paying for a subscription to anything else.

Also, I'm fairly certain that I probably just revealed a huge amount of ignorance regarding the WSJ and what it actually is...
 
The WSJ is one of the few news organizations that charges for Web access right now because, people tell me, its info is so valuable to Wall Street people.

I'm assuming this iPad app will have a LOT of user-friendly additions because the price to subscribe to the Web site is $2/week. There must be a LOT added for an extra $10/month.

Considering my salary comes through a newspaper, I'm really hoping the industry figures out how to get people to pay online. Basically it boils down to shutting down the free access and proving to people that your stuff is worth money. I think a page or two should be offered per day to very casual readers, but there is a LOT of hard work that goes into that stuff. Giving it away online was quite a dumb move in retrospect.

I just hope we don't have the sector of iPhone app users that whine over 99 cent apps as the majority of online news customers. I think some of these people would whine over a cross-country flight that was $29 because they had to fill out a five-minute survey on the trip.
 
Michael CM1 said:
The WSJ is one of the few news organizations that charges for Web access right now because, people tell me, its info is so valuable to Wall Street people.

I'm assuming this iPad app will have a LOT of user-friendly additions because the price to subscribe to the Web site is $2/week. There must be a LOT added for an extra $10/month.

Considering my salary comes through a newspaper, I'm really hoping the industry figures out how to get people to pay online. Basically it boils down to shutting down the free access and proving to people that your stuff is worth money. I think a page or two should be offered per day to very casual readers, but there is a LOT of hard work that goes into that stuff. Giving it away online was quite a dumb move in retrospect.

I just hope we don't have the sector of iPhone app users that whine over 99 cent apps as the majority of online news customers. I think some of these people would whine over a cross-country flight that was $29 because they had to fill out a five-minute survey on the trip.
Click to expand...

The key is to be unique content. Smaller and local papers have gotten so slimmed down over the years, I don't know if they can exist. They rely too much on canned content and syndicated sources that don't make them unique.

I would love a local paper to my area with quality content and writers available to me on an iPad like device. However, there are limits to what that is worth to me. So there is a fine line there.
 
I will pay it if there is an option to automatically download new editions so I can read the WSJ on the go (no WiFi access, but still able to read it without 3G).
 
don't understand

I really don't understand how this is going to work?

Will they charge CURRENT subs this amount, it would appear so,

I am a current sub, print and online. I pay 99$ a year for BOTH combined.

I have the iphone app, which sync's with my ONLINE account, I don't pay anything to have access to this account or content-normally one with only ONLINE OR PRINT would pay something like 5$ a month.

What are they going to charge me now, 17.99$ a month for the ipad? 12.99$ to cover the difference? Nothing?

Are they going to KEEP The current WSJ app OFF the itunes app store for download on the ipad? Couldn't I just SYNC my current itunes account with the ipad and then use that?

Fragmentation is going to kill these types of services.
 
now

southerndoc said:
I will pay it if there is an option to automatically download new editions so I can read the WSJ on the go (no WiFi access, but still able to read it without 3G).
Click to expand...

Isn't this what the current free (to current subs) wsj.com app does today on the iphone?
 
elmo151 said:
I have a WSJ subscription. It includes daily newspaper delivery, internet access to the full web site and full site access on my iPhone,

I will not pay an additional $17.99 per month for iPad access. I would consider an additional $5.00 per month.

We'll have to wait and see what the actual price is and what is included
Click to expand...

I have online access and I already refused to pay more to be able to access a subset of that information on an iPhone (which used to be free). If they'll want additional $17.99 for an iPad, and there won't be any package deals, it is quite likely that I may rethink my overall approach here. I believe that I pay Mr. Murdoch enough already, and if his corporation is this greedy, I may just actually cancel my existing online subscription.
 
I currently have the paid WSJ for the iPhone & wished I never got it. I need to write to WSJ CS & see if I can upgrade to the online version of the WSJ & pay the difference. For $17.99/month, they better blow my mind away & be the only new source I read because I could read others online for free.
 
After over 25 years of receiving the paper edition of the WSJ I've cancelled my subscription. I'm NOT subscribing to the iPad or web edition. (I think I'm going through some withdraw. :eek: ). I'm going to use Bloomberg and other sites. If it was $2 or less per week I would be sign up, but it isn't worth to price. Goodbye, I'm going to miss it, but it's priced out of the market. :apple:
 
how much

how much do you pay, I pay 79$ a year still, was 99$ a year and that is paper and web and iphone and ipad for now.
 
wallstreet types and people who actually READ WSJ are the target demographics for this thats why Fox can afford to charge $17.99/month.


these people would gladly pay $17.99/month.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back