A Decade with WSJ Online
The Wall Street Journal's subscription website -- the Online Journal -- celebrated its tenth anniversary on April 29. I'm inexplicably proud to say that I was a charter subscriber, and the site remains the only one that I'm willing and happy to pay for.
The site was rolled out as a free demo, and it remained that way until August, 1996, at which time the subscription fees were implemented: $29/year for subscribers to the paper edition and $49/year for non-print-subscribers. I'm not sure how many others joined me in subscribing (at the time, I had a print subscription courtesy of my employer...but I paid for the online version out of my own pocket and did so until we parted ways several years later), but by April, 1997, there were 100,000. That number doubled by December of 1997. The subscriber base reached 700,000 in 2004, surely making the Online Journal one of the most successful publications of its kind. In fact, this Dow Jones press release touts it as "the largest paid subscription news site on the Web" and pegs the fall, 2005 subscriber base at 764,000. (By way of comparison, the paid circulation of the dead tree version is just over 2 million.)
The subscription fee is now $99 per year ($49 for those who are also print subscribers). Interestingly, that $99 is the same price that subscribers pay for the daily print edition.
The WSJ is one mainstream outlet that "gets the web," in my opinion. It continues to tweak its layout, content, and features while still retaining a distinctive and traditional feel, and while resisting any moves to include superfluous eye-candy that slow the site without adding any meaning.
I spend on average less than fifteen minutes a day perusing the Journal's website, but that fifteen minutes generally time better spent than on any other business or news site. The added benefit of an online-only subscription is that I don't have to face a growing pile of partially-read newspapers...and, believe me, those things can stack up in a hurry.
Gwynne, I didn't mention the fact that I appreciate the WSJ's conservative bent, which I suspect is also one of the reasons it's on your short list. They don't hammer you over the head with it, and it doesn't seem to affect their ability to report the facts, but the "lens color" is one that goes with my psychic decor. ;-)
Posted by: Eric at May 2, 2006 11:11 AMAgreed. But the arts and entertainment paper is quite the opposite, but I like it because it doesn't try and conceal that fact, unlike say, the NY Times. A little counter culture adds contrast to that "lens color" you're talking about. Without the bad, we cannot fully appreciate the good, or something like that. ;-)
Posted by: Gwynne at May 2, 2006 11:29 AMAbout the publisher
Random Abbye photos...
"Glove Box Stories" is Back!
Eel on a Wheel
Meteorological Musings
Random Thursday
Is stupidity the Net effect?
More Invaders
Back Yard Birds
Book Review: "The Year of Living Biblically"
Sometimes, you get lucky...
June Sunset
It's Official...
Google's new favicon rocks the design world
Give the Gift of Flame
The Incredible Shrinking Math Skills
The Neighborhood:
West Texas Blogs:
[Midland unless otherwise indicated]
Other Texas Blogs:
The Business:
The Church:
The World:
I'm glad to hear this. I've been debating paying for the online subscription myself, tired of the stacks of partially read papers. The WSJ is really the only paper worth reading, imho. Well, that, and the local arts and entertainment paper. ;-)
Posted by: Gwynne at May 2, 2006 10:21 AM