Does The Wall Street Journal Risk Becoming Irrelevant?

from the learn-to-play-online dept

Last year, Adam Penenberg knocked the NY Times for becoming increasingly irrelevant in an online world. By locking up their archives, they made it difficult to be found in Google -- and in an online world, if you're not found on Google, you barely exist. If that was bad, things may be much worse for the Wall Street Journal, according to Penenberg. We've covered this issue before. Many people are giving up on the Wall Street Journal, in part because they can't link to the stories. In an online world where many people feel that sharing the news is as important (if not more important) than reading it, this makes the Wall Street Journal useless. While the Journal has been able to coast by on its (well deserved) reputation, Penenberg points out that the younger generation that's being raised online has other options. The Wall Street Journal's strategy works in a world where there aren't other options, and everyone learns that to get the day's business news you go to the WSJ. It's a strategy for the status quo. However, it's not a strategy for bringing on new readers when those new readers are already overwhelmed by news everywhere they look. So, while the WSJ's strategy may be able to last for some time, it's going to increasingly come under pressure -- which is why Penenberg suggests they throw up the doors now. Of course, it's unlikely the Journal will listen. Instead, they're trying to do things like start a weekend paper edition -- because what we all want in our lives these days is more paper.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    dorpus, Feb 24th, 2005 @ 3:24am

    Depends on whether blogs can stay relevant

    Many news sites on the web such as slashdot, techdirt, etc. are stuck in a 1995 time warp of web technology, with primitive and unpleasant software. When will better blogs replace them?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 24th, 2005 @ 7:11am

    Newspapers are bird cage liners ....


    Wall Street Journal ?
    Is that a paper newspaper ?

    No wonder I've never picked one up ...

    CNN,FARK,DRUDGR,USAToday ... these are MY news sites

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Boilerbob, Feb 24th, 2005 @ 7:31am

    Re: Depends on whether blogs can stay relevant

    I read Techdirt for the content not the technology. I find many articles interesting and relevant. I'd prefer to watch a great TV show on a 10 year old TV then a bad show in HDTV.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 24th, 2005 @ 8:26am

    Re: HDTV

    Actually, I've watched the sport of curling only because it was in HDTV. I love my HDTVs.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    sly squirrel, Feb 24th, 2005 @ 9:36am

    scandals, can't afford netjets

    I usually read the in depth articles about what went wrong, or scandals in the WSJ. I don't look to it for any data, nor do I find that the sections other than page 1 with the start of the long stories in either the left or right column to be of any use. there are better online or local paper sources for that. who wants to see slick crap you can't possibly buy in the personal sections, etc. and unfortunately, I can't do netjets.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Ranger, Feb 24th, 2005 @ 10:16am

    Re: scandals, can't afford netjets

    Not everyone can and should compete online.

    A weekend paper IS a good idea, if everyone else is dropping them and/or going online.

    They are the WSJ. Why *should* they open their archives? So that any blogger can link to them, in fact, "re-use" their content for their own gains.

    They have a demographic now. Perhaps that demo really doesn't want to read online. Maybe they don't want the online generation at all.

    Should Drudge start a paper?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Feb 24th, 2005 @ 10:42am

    Re: scandals, can't afford netjets

    The point is just that they're going to have difficulty attracting new readers. Over time, that becomes a problem.

    And, it's not about anyone "re-using" their content, but sharing it -- which helps to promote the WSJ. Right now, they get very little promotion.

    That's fine, if that's what they want to do, but it might mean they start to run into trouble when they can't sign up new users any more.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    RJD, Feb 24th, 2005 @ 11:04am

    Not yet

    Blogs are not going to replace the WSJ anytime soon unless the Blogger is a known and trusted (relatively) source of information. When you read a published newspaper (on or off line) you expect and generally get an honest (though often biased) story.

    A number of business rags have yet to make their content freely available ... most who read these are reading them to make money and generally are willing to spend money to make it.

    Let people tie to your content is all good and well to drive eyes to your site .. but it assumes you'll get something of value by having more eyes. Usually revenue derived from advertising.

    This is fine for rags on/off line that use advertising for their primary revenue source but a number of periodicals still get their money via subscriptions. It may be 'old school' but it's a fairly proven model with an easy way of keep a constant cash flow.

    All that said, I don't subscribe to the WSJ paper but I do subscribe to the on-line edition as well as Barron's Magezine. I do prefer the paper addition as I can look at it in a leisurely way versus having to be tied to a computer. But the price diff is/was enough to send me to the online editions. I still go to the library to read them on weekends as mouse-clicking has yet to be conveniet as thumbing through.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Feb 24th, 2005 @ 11:15am

    Re: Not yet

    This is fine for rags on/off line that use advertising for their primary revenue source but a number of periodicals still get their money via subscriptions. It may be 'old school' but it's a fairly proven model with an easy way of keep a constant cash flow.

    That's the whole point. It may be fairly proven now, but the question is will it be able to continue. You assume it will always be that way. Penenberg points out many reasons why that seems unlikely.

    Besides, you missed the point on bloggers. Neither of us are saying bloggers will *replace* the WSJ. Not at all. In fact, we're saying that it's other news sources that are available online. It's just that the bloggers are the ones who are spreading the news by linking to it... and by not linking to the WSJ, it lowers the level of exposure the WSJ gets -- and that's the issue. If a younger generation that finds its news sources online never hears much about the Journal, why would they ever pay for it?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    dorpus, Feb 24th, 2005 @ 11:58am

    Re: Depends on whether blogs can stay relevant

    Still, there can be more productive and fun discussions with newer blogging software. But I see that that's too progressive a concept for this crowd. :-D

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Ranger, Feb 24th, 2005 @ 8:56pm

    Interesting point.

    Hey Mike:

    As you say, how will the WSJ find new readers?

    But how did they found new readers in the 1970's?

    I know what you're saying. Free PR from bloggers. More eyeballs. And a generation growing up reading Drudge/CNN/blogs, will they even want to read a newspaper in a few years, when they are "mature" enough for the WSJ?

    But the other side of that is roll-up, plastic screen technology. Some basic stuff is off the assembly lines now, and I can see within 10 years this might save newspapers altogether.

    Is the WSJ thinking of this? Hell no. But I really shouldn't defend them, because I think most major newspapers have no clue on how to handle/integrate online editions.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Feb 24th, 2005 @ 11:55pm

    Re: Interesting point.

    In the 70s, there weren't so many competent free alternatives. Plus, people were raised with the idea that you get a newspaper every day. That's not true any more. Kids don't see the point of getting any paper.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    RJD, Feb 25th, 2005 @ 12:26pm

    Re: Interesting point.

    OK, I'm not being uppity but what do you consider competent free alternatives to the WSJ ? Please direct me to 3 (I'm serious) such sources. They should be sources you would consider making investment decisions based upon.

    And I very much agree with the statement that getting the paper once a day is a lost tradition though it's only because people have found alterative competent sources. Our paper has four sections (World/Region/Sports/DayBreak=comics,TV,horoscopes, entertainment). The world and Sports news is free available in real time from several competent sources. The regional news is only available in the newspaper with sparactic content available on the town website. The daybreak section is pretty much available in pieces from a number of sites but nowhere is it aggregated... which is pretty much what a paper is trying to do for it's community.

    Can this be done better on line ? You betcha !!! Is someone going to ... eventually.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 25th, 2005 @ 1:37pm

    Re: HDTV

    Some of us can't afford an HDTV.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    Aaron de Oliveira (profile), Aug 1st, 2005 @ 9:36pm

    Re: Interesting point.

    "Please direct me to 3 (I'm serious) such sources."
    Mostly I use Yahoo!News, Google News and other news aggregates to stay abrest of change in the business world. When something strikes my fancy for an investment, I check them out at places like Motley Fool.
    This tiered approach provides me with all the information in the WSJ and more.
    (I'm not sure if that counts as 2 or 3 sources for investing info)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    superfancy8, Mar 7th, 2006 @ 12:08pm

    No Subject Given

    It's a shame that WSJ isn't free because it is so good. Unmatchable deep insight from worldly, experienced journalists who are not allowed to write in their PJs.

    However, unless you are a large-scale investor or policy maker, Reuters and AP news, via Yahoo.com, is probably enough...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This