Comments on: Wall Street Journal plans micropayments model

The newspaper plans to launch an a la carte-style payment plan for access to individual articles, according to a Financial Times report.

[monkeyfun14]

Realistically if they were to just stop printing papers and move totally online and just sell ad spots they would make more money. Companies like CNET have been doing it for years.

Charging micropayments is just going to make people get their news elsewhere.

"Oh you want to read about the school bus flipping off the road and into a freeway you'll need to pay $1"

[BigGuns149]

Your joke about charging a $1 to read a story about a bus flipping is pretty stupid insofar as micropayments generally far less than $1 (eg. 10c) and nobody is reading the WSJ for stupid stories about a school bus flipping over.

While most news sources couldn't realistically get anyone to pay for their stories (largely because they are simply syndicating news from somebody else) some news sources that write good and unique content like the WSJ can get people to pay for the content. The WSJ has been successfully doing it for years. The real question isn't whether you can get people to pay for content, but rather whether micropayment systems can succeed.

[mutualin4mation]

I subscribe to WSJ and one of the reasons is the quality of the reporting. Their substantial in-depth reporting on the financial melt down of the banking industry is truly unparalleled. Whereas other newspapers' reporting are caught in political sniping WSJ explains exactly what happened to take down banks and AIG. WSJ would argue that that type of quality doesn't come from a free advertisement supported service. Compared to WSJ, cnet is the bush league.

[William Crow]

WSJ articles may be worth the cost. Excellent editorial page, too. But I like the paper product to much to give it up.

[Alex Alexzander]

Love the journal. Love the New York Times as well. It's too bad they have such difficulty. I am one of the few I guess willing to pay. And I'd pay more to get rid of the ads. But too many internet companies give away content, and thus the model fails because what they can't get from site a they can from site b.

[BigGuns149]

With the WSJ I don't think that they have quite as much competition as a more general news publication like the NYT. The WSJ I don't think is in quite the same dire straits as the NYT.

[k2dave]

Having people pay anything, even a fraction of a penny, is a huge disincentive IMHO, just going through the transaction is a turnoff.

About the only thing people at this time are willing to give for access to such information is their email address, and that only sometimes,

[SactoGuy018]

I think the Wall Street Journal managed to become a paid site because its information is so highly valued by everyone in the financial industry. Mind you, I'd like to see Dow Jones offer a US$6.95/month paid subscription for its online content, which would dramatically increase the usage of its web site.

US$6.95/month is actually a bargain, because that's the cost of two high-end Starbucks coffees.

[faust]

BigGuns149 - really?
let's say average CPM on WSJ.com is $35, what do you think average page goes for in paper?

As for companies like CNET have been doing it for years, how many of those years has CNET been in the black?
And remember for a long time CNET had a print division because it made money, remember Computer Shopper magazine?

[faust]

Sorry, comment was directed at monkeyfun14

[dontheideaguy]

I don't think this has to succeed or fail based on the ability to process micropayments. Simply charge for a set of "credits" that can be used as a reader desires access to stories. Rather have to process 10-cents for each access, charge a $1 and give the user 10 credits to use. Encourage purchase of additional credits by having BOGO or bulk discounts. The model works well for istockphoto.com and should scale well.

As a matter of fact, why doesn't the Newspaper industry get together to create credits that can be used across ALL print media sites. It will increase the value of credits if they could be spent on ANY site, rather than restricting them to a single site and requiring the purchase of additional credits for every news site you access.

~DON
http://www.DonTheIdeaGuy.com

[bennetts77833]

I Started my WSJ subscription at $49/year when it was first offered. Great value good product that has improved over the last six or so years. But WSJ publishers have continually raised prices and added products I did not want like Barrons so at the $80 a year price point, for a year I discontinued my subscription. They offered me a deal to resubscribe for $80 after that year with a $20 Amazon coupon which got me a reasonable price; but at a $100 per year now, it will be nice to see a micro payments option. I don't use much of their content (sports?, wine reviews, stock quotes etc.) and for me, the subscription is not tax deductible as the publishers assume. so I hope their micro payments system will be reasonable. I'm retired now and on a reduced income (that's not low, just lower) $100 for one publication and $40/mo ($480 a year for TV, shameful for cable or satellite tv) and makes me interested in micro payments there too!