Free the Journal

Lehman Brothers analyst Douglas Anmuth doesn’t go quite so far as to recommend that Rupert Murdoch should take the Wall Street Journal free online — as Murdoch has mused — but he does say they should consider it (in this PDF, via PaidContent).

I’ll go that far — and farther. By going free and with Murdoch’s investment in the product — that is, in the reporting and services and with his promotion — WSJ.com can become the unquestioned leading financial information brand worldwide, winning over its many competitors: Yahoo, Reuters (now stronger with Thomson), AOL, FT.com, Forbes, MSN, CNBC. But that will happen only if it goes free.

The strategy of charging for access to WSJ.com was, I’ll argue, a result of the Bancrofts’ absentee ownership. It was a way to play safe, to get another revenue stream and not cannibalize the paper. And management executed it brilliantly. But that wasn’t big thinking. Free is big thinking. And Murdoch thinks big.

He has also toyed publicly with the idea of going all-online: killing the paper. The Journal could, I think, be the first newspaper that could make that a strategy of success and growth instead of a sign of failure. Oh, I wouldn’t kill it quite yet. But I’d plan for that day and, in the meantime, figure out what the next stages of the print Journal should look like: all analysis and features, perhaps, with a USA-Today-like digest of news. But that’s still looking at the question the wrong way: papercentric. The real question is what the free online service could be worldwide: content, service, audience, advertising, thinking past paper.

No surprise, I’d also argue that WSJ.com should become distributed, putting its news and, more important, its data out there as nuggets, widgets, modules that many other sites — blogs, social services, shows — can distribute for you.

Make WSJ.com into an API and see what people can build on top of it. Why shouldn’t I be able to build a site tracking news in media with a foundation from WSJ.com: news, stock charts, industry performance, analysts’ opinions? The more people build on top of you, the bigger you get.

Getting back just to the site, Lehman’s Anmuth says that WSJ.com would need to double or triple its pageviews to make up for the lost subscription revenue with advertising volume. He’s not sure they can do that quickly. Fred Wilson, on the other hand, points out that NYTimes.com has 10 times the traffic of WSJ.com. I’ll agree that they could triple traffic in no time. So what about the ad rate? Anmuth says that WSJ.com attracts four times the rate of NYTimes.com. Dorian Benkoil would argue, I think, that this indicates free traffic is worth less than paid traffic. But I say that a free WSJ.com would still maintain high CPMs because financial is one of the only categories where there is some measure of scarcity online (that and travel and health at most sites I know); the IAB says financial is the No. 2 ad category (behind retail).

And the other factor that is almost always forgotten in this discussion of free-v-paid is the cost of charging: mostly the cost of marketing to acquire and retain subscriptions. We’re rarely told what the churn is at these paid sites — WSJ, NYT, FT — and that is a huge part of the cost structure that has to be part of the discussion of the bottom-line profitability of the strategy.

I have little doubt that the free WSJ.com would overtake the paid WSJ.com in revenue and profitability in short order. But, again, that’s not the reason to do this. The reason to go free is to explode the brand and make it many times bigger — internationally — than it is today.

Going free — and widgetized — will get it not only explosive traffic and audience growth but also, thanks to the links it doesn’t get now (apart from the smattering of free articles they wisely mete out to bloggers now) much, much richer Googlejuice. Search for “stocks” today and the first listing — after GoogleNews headlines — is Yahoo. Also on the first page are MSN, Business Week, and SmartMoney. The Wall Street Journal is not there. That is costing them a fortune.

And once they get Googlejuice, they can also get many times more Google ad revenue — even locally targeted ad revenue — they’re not getting today.

Another way to look at this is the return on investment Murdoch will get improving the product. If he adds more reporters, as he has said he plans to do, will that pay off in additional subscriptions and ad inventory? It’s hard to argue that it will have an immediate impact. But every new journalist who writes a new story that can be found on the open web will yield immediate traffic and ROI.

If they’re worried about leaving expense-account money on the table, there are so many new ways that WSJ can charge for services: advanced analytic data and software, industry meetings (real and virtual), special reports.

In the end, though, the bulk of being No. 1 will yield so many new opportunities. I think there will be a war to create valuable “social” networks in business (instead of buying Facebook, maybe Murdoch should buy Linked-In and liven it up before Facebook becomes — as it rapidly is — the default business networking tool online). The larger you are, the less your marketing costs you and Murdoch is about to start marketing his financial news channel (where internet distribution becomes vital; the days of making a channel work only through cable are over). He can capture the valuable wisdom of wise crowds and individuals (note that I’m an investor in Covestor, which exposes the successful individual investors and their strategies).

Free means big and there should be no smaller ambition for the Wall Street Journal than being the best and the biggest brand about money.

  • Pingback: rexblog.com: Rex Hammock’s weblog » Blog Archive » News Corp should open up WSJ.com’s golden door to the huddled masses yearning to surf free

  • http://www.thefutureofnews.com Steve Boriss

    Making the online WSJ free is fine. But, sooner or later, a corner must be turned. It is not just about traffic, but the ability to gather relatively pure audiences of good and hard-to-reach sales prospects for advertisers. That is the power of the web. Cable’s CNBC is charging high rates simply for reaching relatively wealthy viewers. Think of how much more finely-targeted affluent audiences the WSJ can deliver if they parse their content properly, whether by formatting their site or through widgets or feeds. (Steve Boriss, The Future of News)

  • http://www.howardowens.com Howard Owens

    Rebuilding Media has a post well worth considering on why it may not make good economic sense to take WSJ.com free.

    http://tinyurl.com/327dpk

  • http://robertdfeinman.com/society robertdfeinman

    I think there are two “business” news markets. The one Bloomberg and Reuters serve and the one for the general public. Dow Jones has products in both areas.

    The general business press may be profitable and, perhaps, making WSJ “free” will actually earn more revenue, but it’s not really business news. Most of the information that is published is obsolete trading data and press releases from companies. By the time this information reaches people at the breakfast table the real traders have already acted upon it.

    However, there is a market for astrological charts and as long as people are willing to pay for them then I guess that is all that matters from a business point of view.

  • http://spaceygreview.blogspot.com/2007/02/id-rather-be-working-at-ajc-than-delta.html SpaceyG

    I imagine there’s a huge demographic difference between the people who will view a free WSJ (and their advertisers) and the folks looking up astrological charts.

  • Pingback: links for 2007-08-06 « David Black

  • http://deleted Tansley – addendum

    …and I can just SEE the laid-off print staff of the WSJ showing up outside your classroom building with pitchforks and torches….

    I have to admit, though, if Citizen Murdoch DOES do this, it’ll probably have been one of his savviest moves. I might even go so far as to say I hope he lives to see it go into the BLACK—naahhhhhhh….

  • Pingback: Free To Be, Rupe and We | BoomTown | Kara Swisher | AllThingsD

  • Pingback: bwl zwei null » New York Times: Online Content nun ganz kostenlos

  • Pingback: BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » ‘Free the Journal’ drumbeat from inside

  • Pingback: BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » The paid-content widget

  • Leslie Fienstein

    I just read that WSJ.com cannot go free if they wanted to….I’ll paste:

    WSJ.com has agreements with Lexis Nexis, Facitva, Congoo and several other distributors that specifically prohib them from removing the pay wall. They might go free but they will have to pay millions in settlements to do it.

    So who knows?

  • http://trulygenius.com Make Money Online

    I must say, I enjoy reading this website. Maybe you could let me know how I could keeping up to date with it? By the way I discovered your blog through MSN.