Some online content is worth paying for

Some months ago, I let my annual subscription to the Wall Street Journal Online lapse. I've been a subscriber for some years, but decided not to renew the subscription.

Cost was part of the reason. The WSJ Online is just less than $100 for a year. Not a great amount really. But I also subscribe to the Financial Times online which costs £100 (about $176) for a year's sub. So $276 a year is just a bit too much.

One had to go. I decided to continue with the FT. The two media have some similarities in news coverage (no surprise there) but more differences - style, columnists, etc. As I'm in Europe, I figured the FT would serve my information needs best in the context of why I was making a choice between the two.

Today, though, I re-subscribed to the WSJ Online.

What prompted my decision to do that was an email I received from Todd Larsen, President of the WSJ Online, inviting me to take another look at it. He did offer a reduced rate to renew plus a $20 Amazon voucher as an extra incentive. The reduced rate was appealing so I renewed.

But it was not just about the cost. Increasingly in recent weeks, I've read something in an RSS feed from someone's blog that interested me and clicked a link in the post to get something more relating to what the post was about, which typically has been to a story in the Journal online. I've then hit the 'you must be a subscriber...' barrier.

Many people argue that newspapers shouldn't charge for content online; that charging just isn't what the market wants these days when you can get hold of just about anything online for free. This also coincides with a "why should I pay for it?" mindset that's prevalent today (see this wry commentary by David Carr in today's New York Times for his take on why you should pay for some content).

I think it comes down to perceived value - if you want access to something that costs money, and is something you believe is valuable and/or you can't get anywhere else, then you'll pay for it. At least, that's my feeling about why I've re-subscribed to the WSJ Online.

Luckily, my subscriptions to the WSJ and FT aren't at the same time - they're six months apart. So I've got until about next April before I need to go through the should-I-or-shouldn't-I? exercise again...

Comments

[D.]

I agree, there is room for premium content on the internet. For the medium term, I think it is important to the information industry that there is premium content. Since the medium removes the cost of warehousing, printing and distribution we are getting closer to the true value of the content and to a degree the presentation they come in.

Evidently, if the publication's President can email you and offer reduced rates for your business we are not at the absolute true value, but we are getting closer.

[Natalie]

This is a very interesting post. I had never really thought about how much stuff we get free and how much we take if for granted. On campus we can get a free copy of USA Today and the Birmingham news paper and we are often handed free stuff while going to class. This is normally items that we like but just wouldn’t usually buy.

I definitely agree with you that it all comes down to perceived value of something. There are a lot of things I do or have that I wouldn’t if I had to pay for it such as online research, facebook and other various things. I would just do research at the library and just not sign up for things like facebook if it was going to cost my money.

That was good customer relations on part of the Wall Street Journal. I am sure they have a lot of customers who go back and forth if they want to renew their subscription because of the price and not because they didn’t like the publication anymore. And then with a simple personal letter and a discount they can be persuaded to renew.