Comments on: Analyst: WSJ.com Needs 12x Traffic to Break Even

By: Janet Meiners

Janet Meiners — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 20:26:23 +0000

I dubbed myself newspapergrl because I’ve always loved reading the newspaper. I’ve been a subscriber since I was in college.

It’s only in the past year I only get a print edition on Sunday. I read almost all news online now.

If I were their demographic I’d most likely read both online and the print edition. I suspect when I’m older and have more time, I’ll return to reading an actual paper every day.

The WSJ would be worse off long term if they didn’t follow the trends of the industry. I predict with their market, they’ll reach profitability quicker than their competitors.

-Janet

By: Alan Johnson

Alan Johnson — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 19:51:13 +0000

I’d say that WSJ will definitely see an increase in traffic which will help them do more than break even in the long run and again, I think that their decision will definitely prove to be a wise one.

Alan Johnson

By: Steven Bradley

Steven Bradley — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 18:24:04 +0000

Ben and agerhart I think you’re both right. Some people will cancel offline subscriptions and others will keep them. It will depend on personal preferences.

I’m like Ben and will be happy to get the content on screen. I won’t need an offline subscription, though since I don’t currently have one WSJ isn’t losing anything on me.

Some people will absolutely continue to buy the paper. The experience is different and many people prefer reading on the page instead of on the screen.

It’ll be interesting to see how much WSJ can increase traffic. Dropping the subscription will certainly increase traffic, but the question remains how much.

By: agerhart

agerhart — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:48:44 +0000

Ben, you’re absolutely right….But I’ll venture a guess that you are a tech savvy individual and spend a considerable amount of time online. If this is true than you do not share the same habits and/or mindset as other demographics and a large part of the population. I’d also venture to guess that it isn’t a large portion of the WSJ’s demographic.

By: Ben Cook

Ben Cook — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:28:39 +0000

I agree it is sometimes nice to have something in print to read rather than looking at a screen even longer than usual. However, I would be willing to bet that agerhart is wrong on this one. From a personal standpoint, over the last couple of years I’ve canceled my subscription to one paper and two magazines. Why? Because they all have the same content online. I do value having the physical copy but not enough to continue to pay. And, if I end up really getting sick of the computer screen, I just print things off.

Really both of our points seem to be based on personal preference and I’d love to see some research on this subject.

By: Alan Johnson

Alan Johnson — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 00:31:28 +0000

I agree, since, let’s face it, there are times when you are just sick and tired of staring at a computer screen and printed magazines are definitely a nice alternative

Alan Johnson

By: agerhart

agerhart — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 23:27:48 +0000

Ben,

I think what you suggest is a common misconception within the print vs digital debate.

Reading a printed newspaper or magazine is an entirely different experience and process when compared to reading an article online or visiting a website. People enjoy bringing newspapers and magazines on trips (trains, planes, etc.), or to the gym, or while reading their morning coffee. The number of these consumers may decrease with time as the tech-savvy generations age and with technological advances, but who knows.

But, I don’t believe there is a direct correlation between making content available digitally and print subscriptions.

By: Ben Cook

Ben Cook — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 23:15:13 +0000

This doesn’t include any lost revenue from off line subscriptions either though. If you can get it free online, why would you pay to have it delivered off?

By: Alex

Alex — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 22:33:35 +0000

$6 CPM? Agencies should be able to negotiate down to $40 CPMs and smaller advertisers will probably pay even more.

By: Matt Fritz

Matt Fritz — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:28:54 +0000

Personally I am glad they are switching. I don’t at all like sites that charge you just to gain access to articles. With so many sites out there, if I see a sign up form, even if it doesn’t cost anything I leave.

By: Alan Johnson

Alan Johnson — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:58:07 +0000

I doubt they’ll need that much traffic since $6 eCPM is extremely low, they definitely have the potential to monetize their website a lot better than that. Personally, I think that their decision was a wise one, a decision which will definitely pay off in the long run.

Alan Johnson