WSJ To Charge for Content

[Jeff Campbell]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.tuaw.com/2009/09/15/wsj-to-start-charging-for-iphone-content/' target='_blank'>http://www.tuaw.com/2009/09/15/wsj-...iphone-content/</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"Say farewell to the free Wall Street Journal on the iPhone."</em></p><p><em><img src="http://images.thoughtsmedia.com/resizer/thumbs/size/600/at/auto/1253057036.usr105634.jpg" style="border: 1px solid #d2d2bb;" /></em></p><p>I knew it was too good to last. They expect to start charging for the content within the next few months, $2.00 USD per month (only $1.00 USD per month if you already get hard copy or subscribe to the online edition). I use this app on the iPhone daily, at a minimum to scan the stories for the day even if I don't have time to read them, so I'm trying to decide if I use it enough to keep it. What are your thoughts?&nbsp;</p>

[ptyork]

Obviously they'll lose the vast majority of their readers. Even though $2 per month is reasonable, most won't pay it. Boneheaded to charge ANYTHING for those who already subscribe, a move that will bring nothing but scorn.

It is a good additional information source, but for what I use it for, it isn't worth $24/yr. Perhaps if I was a heavy investor, but for me, it is really just to read their private tech blogs. They should consider two versions: one with all of the content, paid, and one with AP stories and blogs that is ad supported (as much as I hate that monster advertisement from the bottom of the screen).

[doogald]

Murdoch has made it pretty clear that he is going to charge for information from his news sources (though I wonder if this holds for foxnews.com? He really didn't say - I think that it was just his newspapers he was talking about.) It'll be interesting to see if he fares any better than the NY Times did when they failed at that. My own sense is that, I agree, I think very few people will pay, too few to be worthwhile. But time will tell . . .

[David Tucker]

I think this is the inevitable future of content and I can't say I am opposed to it.

[Fritzly]

I think this is the inevitable future of content and I can't say I am opposed to it.

Actually this is double charging: I have a subscription to the WSJ already which includes online access; now Mr. Murdoch expects to get from me another dollar per month?
It' s a long way to Tipperary..........

[karen]

I think this is the inevitable future of content and I can't say I am opposed to it.

So do I. I think the sweet spot for getting people to pay is closer to .99 per month -- think iTunes model for apps and songs.

Maybe they should come up with a price of $2/month or $15 per year...or something like that.

I still see content providers trying to charge closer to $9 per month. Those will fail