Maybe You CAN Charge for Info
social media 101Published July 28, 2010 at 9:57 am 1 Comment
So Robert and I have been discussing this at length lately, and I wanted to post his response to my previous article on charging for info:
“There is (I’m fairly certain) an interesting exception in this space: the Wall St Journal. The WSJ charges for some content but not for other content. It is exceptional in this regard and also in another. It was (I believe) the only traditional newspaper to actually increase profits last year.
The demographic of the WSJ may be a determining factor in this, but I’m not sure FT enjoys the same fidelity amongst its subscribers, despite having (at least theoretically a similar readership). Speculating on why one paper can charge (successfully) and another cannot might be an interesting wrinkle to add to the post. Though the first step would be to confirm that the WSJ did in fact increase profits last year. You wouldn’t want to take my ramblings at face value.”
So, he did more homework, and found this:
Alan Murray of The Wall Street Journal on charging for content from Nieman Journalism Lab on Vimeo.
Well, looks like Robert proved his point. What are your thoughts? Can you charge for info on the internet? Is it more complicated then that?
The article this came from is here.
Leave a comment with your thoughts!
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by rob_5000, Thrive Social Media. Thrive Social Media said: Maybe You CAN Charge for Info online – http://bit.ly/9PM1d4 [...]