{{ searchResult.published_at | date:'d MMMM yyyy' }}

Loading ...
Loading ...

Enter a search term such as “mobile analytics” or browse our content using the filters above.


That’s not only a poor Scrabble score but we also couldn’t find any results matching “”.
Check your spelling or try broadening your search.


Sorry about this, there is a problem with our search at the moment.
Please try again later.

The Wall Street Journal may be getting more expensive. The business paper has been making headlines of late for growing its revenues behind a pay wall while other papers are bleeding ad revenue. But is the Journal the exception to the rule, or just ahead of the curve of paying more money for content?

Speaking at the Digiday: Networks conference in New York, Brian Quinn, the Journal's vice president of digital ad sales, said that the newspaper is so happy with its subcription results that it is looking to push the website toward a "hyperpaid" model. And Quinn said that there are initiatives across Newscorp trying to try to get people to pay even more for its content.

Just last week, former AOL exec and current Chief Digital Officer at News Corp. John Miller suggested that Hulu content might soon go behind a pay wall. But will charging for content work for all Dow Jones properties?

Unlikely. WSJ.com has succeeded so far because the site has a unique position in the marketplace. With its focus on business and its trusted reputation for reporting quality content, many individuals and businesses depend on the Journal enough to pay for it. But will other properties function in the same way? Hulu for one has a good deal of content that users are accustomed to access for free, which even Quinn admits is an inhibitor to switching to a paid model.

When asked if other newspapers could take a lesson from the Journal, he said that his paper had an advantage because "we had the benefit of doing it out of the gate."

But hearts and minds are changing as media executives try to get around declining ad revenues. Quinn noted that when Rupert Murdoch first expressed interest in purchasing Dow Jones, he was focused on making The Wall Street Journal free. But now that he is at the helm of the paper, "Murdoch is all about paid."

The Journal has been smart about its subscription model so far. They do not hide all of their content behind a pay wall — virtually all Wall Street Journal content is available for free through search. It's a loophole that allows free access to articles, but it's not a way to game their system, it's intentional, says Quinn: "We want the site to be part of the search experience."

There is a worry that such free features will eat into the company's revenue. As yet, the company hasn't seen any encroachment into their revenues from the free search feature, but they are willing to pull it if that happens in the future.

Quinn says that The Wall Street Journal is focused on "growing the free," but across the board at News Corp., they are trying to get people to pay more for content.

It makes sense to find alternative to advertising in such a weak market. But charging for content is a risky proposal with the potential to lose viewers. Hulu, for instance, is growing in popularity and working toward being the market leader for high quality television content, but hiding its videos behind a pay wall could see viewers flee at a high rate.

As Quinn said today, changing the subscription model for a business can sometimes be a case of trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube.

Meghan Keane

Published 8 June, 2009 by Meghan Keane

Based in New York, Meghan Keane is US Editor of Econsultancy. You can follow her on Twitter: @keanesian.

721 more posts from this author

Comments (3)


Bradley J. Fikes

"It's a loophole that allows free access to articles, but it's not a way to game their system, it's intentional, says Quinn: 'We want the site to be part of the search experience.' "

More likely, they're afraid to lose the traffic  they get through Google links.

over 7 years ago



Is the online WSJ really succeeding? Or is the WSJ bleeding subscribers and not revealing the truth? Can we ever trust News Corp. and Rupert Murdoch?

over 7 years ago



I've been a paid online subscriber of the WSJ since about 1994. Actually I started as a beta tester for the site and then gladly paid when it shifted to aubscription. I can honestly say this is one subscription that I will always keep and I am far from alone in that.

over 7 years ago

Save or Cancel

Enjoying this article?

Get more just like this, delivered to your inbox.

Keep up to date with the latest analysis, inspiration and learning from the Econsultancy blog with our free Daily Pulse newsletter. Each weekday, you ll receive a hand-picked digest of the latest and greatest articles, as well as snippets of new market data, best practice guides and trends research.