First Signs Of Trouble At The Wall Street Journal?
from the looking-that-way... dept
The Wall Street Journal's own strategy over the past few years has been baffling for some. They seem to be betting on the fact that there simply could never be any competition to match the WSJ. However, with a string of moves that suggest they're completely unaware of how the internet works, plenty of people have been pointing out that the Wall Street Journal is losing its relevance. Of course, this brings out cries about how much better the content is in the WSJ -- but if people don't find it valuable relative to the competition, then it doesn't matter how good the content is, the Journal will have trouble competing. It appears that the Journal's own advertisers are figuring this out, and have bailed on the paper, leading the paper to report troubled earnings and worries about the strategy of the paper going forward. So far, the strategy seems to be to convince other newspapers to make the same mistakes the WSJ did. This is the "if everyone screws up as badly as we did, then we won't look so bad" strategy that tends not to work so well in the real world. The article notes, by the way, that the Journal's online division out-performed the paper division -- but that's probably a red herring, since it's difficult to split the costs of each. Are stories that show up on both considered an expense for the paper, the online part, or both? No matter what, this shows that advertisers are recognizing that the WSJ hasn't been able to adjust with the times, and there are better places to put their money when it comes to advertising to the financial crowd. For a paper that's supposed to be on the Wall Street beat, you'd figure they'd have a better sense as to when their own market shifted out from under them.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Paper and Ink
I agree that the WSJ has some of the best writing (the only real competition is The Economist), but by shutting themselves off from the rest of the internet they are shooting themselves in the foot.
Flip the whole thing: spin off the on-line edition from the print version, have the online entity get all the reporters and facilities, and then have the print version license the copy from the online business.
[The above statement probably shows why I am not a media mogul.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Old Media and New Money
http://www.publicradio.org/tools/media/player/marketplace/2005/04/14_mpp?start=00:00:06:20.0&en d=00:00:10:49.0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wall Street Journal and Judgment
Right, like the emperor's new suit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wall Street Journal
The main thing is the two front page stories, and sometimes the extra one. Rest of it is fishwrap.
However they get the scoop on scandals and print nice sagas of those.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WSJ
Has this changed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
disagree
whether the folks at dow jones are good business people is another question altogether. although we tend to dismiss them (in our desire for knowledge to be free), they have been a HUGE success story. who else gets a bunch of people to pay more than $50/year to access their content? not Y!; not CNN; not TD. Mike uses TD as a hook for his corporate services, and that works for him. The WSJ gets people to pay yearly for their content, and many do so.
Print is dying, and everyone knows it. You can't blame the dinosaurs for wringing every bit out of it that they can, as well as having a hard time figuring out how to handle all the personnel they have decicated to the project. That said, the journal is doing allright. They serve their target market, and they seem to be poised better than most to make the leap from their current media to online. Think about it, if TV went away tomorrow, how much revenue would CNN have? At least the journal would have $60/year per sub...
DPG
[ link to this | view in chronology ]