Should the WSJ Cancel Subscription Fees?
Free Subscriptions = More Advertising $$$
The soon to be owner of the Wall Street Journal, Rupert Murdoch, claims that the WSJ is missing out on a potential avalanche of advertising dollars because of their membership fees. The online advertising bubble continues to swell from $17 billion this year to nearly $30 billion in 2011.
Web surfers often times will come to a website in need of information or service only to be told they must buy a subscription. Once the viewer realizes this, they often travel to a new site who will offer the same information for free. In the WSJ’s case, this idea is very true. Browsers can find reprinted WSJ articles, as well as other articles on the same topics elsewhere for free.
The Wall Street Journal must understand that their subscription fees revenue cannot compare to the revenue generated from advertising. The WSJ needs to cancel their subscription fees and increase their advertising efforts. As the foremost leader in Financial News, the WSJ would be neglecting their own daily advice by not capitalizing on present opportunities.
- Best Buy to Unveil a Rival Video Service to YouTubeBest Buy is rolling out their new video hosting network, similar to YouTube, only with Best Buy's se...
- BlogRush … Let’s be Honest, it was You, Not meSo I just got an email from BlogRush saying that I didn't receive a high enough quality score to be ...
- Apple to Join in Movie Subscription Battle Against Netflix and BlockBusterI reported last week that the online movie subscription wars between Netflix and BlockBuster rages o...
- Site Build It Buy One Site get One Free
- SEO Tools: SoloSEO
No Comments »
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
