Should the Wall Street Journal move to a free online model?

Yes
No
Resources for this issue
Reviews of this issue

This issue has been approved by whereIstand editors.

Do not use this page to take a stand on this issue.

This page shows the dialogue between users and editors regarding the merits of this issue. If you have comments about the issue's wording, relevance, etc., write them here. Only registered whereIstand members can edit an issue. Users must register in order to participate in all aspects of the whereIstand community.

7/8/2008 12:44:43 PM

Set as news: False

7/5/2008 12:54:03 PM

No, tell us how you really feel, Geoff.

7/4/2008 2:57:09 PM

shit...I didn't realized this was approved. This issue sucks.

7/4/2008 1:32:42 PM

Adorable little robot for best pic!!!!

7/4/2008 2:43:34 AM

"Should" bothers me. This isn't a moral outrage..it's more of fiscal one, right? I feel as though economic opinions are more based on speculation than moral standing. Although Lil Tuffy seems to be inconveniently outraged.

 

To make more broad, since Murdoch's opinion in that sample evidence would also fit:

 

Can/Will a paid content revenue model succeed/survive/compete [with an ad rev. model]?

7/4/2008 2:28:41 AM

Also, it should be WSJ.com. At leas tthat's what they call it in the sample evidence.

7/4/2008 2:27:41 AM

say, anyone seen that new animated movie about the adorable little robot? Any good?

 

Should WSJ.com move to an online advertising revenue model?

 

"free online model" doesn't seem clearly worded to me. I don't think we can assume people will get  that this is about a revenue model.

 


7/4/2008 1:06:09 AM

 They tried to make me pay for WSJ and I said, "No, nooo, no...." GREAT f-ing issue...drives me crazy that they insist on being a paper of record yet have no public access....

previous version of issue

Should the Wall Street Journal move to a free online model?

    7/3/2008 4:48:03 PM

    I object! My issues have been sitting around for over a month! You have ALL the fun!

    *crawls into corner and pouts*

     

    .... nah, no real objection. have at it!

    7/3/2008 4:42:20 PM

    Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh!

    7/3/2008 4:40:22 PM

    Any objections before I approve? I really just wanted to send all of you guys another notification. Heh.

    7/3/2008 1:25:40 PM

    Snooze, you lose.

    7/3/2008 12:59:38 PM

    Set as news: True

    7/3/2008 12:30:50 PM

    Darn it, Brian. You and your lightning speed.

    7/3/2008 12:28:17 PM

    Funny you should ask, Geoff.

    MediaWeek

    July 2, 2008

    WSJ.com Enjoying Significant Bump in Traffic...With Subs Intact

    The Wall Street Journal’s Web site has enjoyed significant traffic growth of late, while still managing to keep its vaunted—and some predicted, doomed--subscription model intact.

    7/3/2008 12:25:35 PM

    WSJ.com Sees Traffic Explosion Despite Paywall, Subscription Model

    7/3/2008 12:22:30 PM

    is this in the news again?

    4/24/2008 4:00:27 PM

    Oh snap, marinaz!

    This issue might still be relevant if we say "an entirely free online model" or something to that effect...

    4/17/2008 2:51:32 PM

    WSJ

    Well, in January the decision was made to retain a subscription component while offering more online for free...

    Is this issue still valid?