Would you pay for the mobile version of the WSJ?
I never understood why the Wall Street Journal, which charges for its online edition, launched an iPhone app (two, if you count All Things D) that gave away its content for free.
Now we know that free doesn't mean free forever.
The Journal's owner, Rupert Murdoch, said the news publisher plans to charge non-subscribers $2 a week for the mobile version (on BlackBerries and iPhones), and $1 per week for online-only subscribers.
Subscribers to both the print and online editions would get it for free, according to this <ahem> free report from Reuters.
I used to have a WSJ online-only subscription, until they more-than-doubled my rate over the course of two years.
I was stupefied they gave away their content on the iPhone for free. But now that experiment in free appears to be over.
And I, of course, wonder how many people who are not already subscribers will be willing to pay to read it on their smartphones.
The truth is, though it was free, I didn't really use the WSJ iPhone app that much. The content that was funneled through it was good, but not overwhelmingly special.
All Things D satisfied my tech itch, and I hope that stays a free app. But even if not, there are still numerous sources on the Web and on my iPhone that will fill the gap.
What do you think? Would you pay for the WSJ app now that you've had a chance to experience it for free for so many months?
(photo credit: Image of WSJ via CNET)
Categories: Apps, Gadgets, Media, Smartphones, Web Dev & Apps
Comments
"I used to have a WSJ online-only subscription, until they more-than-doubled my rate over the course of two years. "
Did the same to me. I even called to ask why my rate doubled and they couldn't do anything about it. Pretty asinine.
Posted by: Gary | September 16, 2009 9:25 AM
I can understand charging for non-subscribers but why charge their existing subscribers again just to access the same content through another channel??? Makes no sense (and is sure to alienate at least some of their current subscribers).
As for me, a non-subscriber, no I will not pay for the access. After all, if I already had a subscription to WSJ, I would expect to access what I already pay for via my iPhone for no more money. And if I wanted to pay, I would already be paying. So charging me now will just mean I will dump the app.
Sometimes I wonder how businesses can be so stupid...
Posted by: David | September 16, 2009 9:25 AM
It was absurd for them to start free if they planned to charge in the future. If anything, it should be the opposite.
Also, the phrase "gave away its content for free" bothers me. I'm hearing it more and more, and that's not exactly what's happening in these cases. Why is it "giving away"? The language and tone implies that this is a bad thing, when, really, the journalism is getting in the hands and minds of more readers and users. That's a good thing.
Posted by: Mary | September 16, 2009 9:59 AM
Mary, that content that you value has a price: there are hard costs associated with developing content and distributing it through one or more channels to reach your hands. Yes, free content is given away. And it will eventually mean a decline in the level of content that is there for the masses (which really has happened already).
Posted by: sdr | September 16, 2009 1:52 PM
With hundreds of news apps out there...and FREE as well...why would I pay for this? Even USA Today, CNN, MSNBC, etc. can fill the gap. They should keep it free and make their bucks ads. You charge, I delete it!
Posted by: Matt Wilson | September 16, 2009 2:09 PM
I think they used the wrong model from the start. Should have been paid all the way or make premium content pay to read in a similar fashion to the web site.
I will be the first to delete the ap once it goes to pay. I can get my news somewhere else for free. I think WSJ charges an absorbinent amount for their "content" and I do not think it is worth it.
Posted by: AJ | September 16, 2009 2:23 PM
sdr, I hear what you're saying, but I don't agree. I'm well-aware of the costs associated with producing content, and I think there are ways to distribute and share it without nickel and diming the people interested in reading it.
On another note, it'll be interesting to see (if that info is released) how many people delete the app once it starts costing.
Posted by: Mary | September 16, 2009 5:09 PM
In short, no for many reasons. I would not pay $.10 for information in any Murdoch newspaper.
Posted by: johnincatonsville | September 22, 2009 12:22 PM