Wall Street Journal Online, And Other Websites With Impenetrable Paywalls

[darkstar965]

According to the Wall Street Journal Yelp is reportedly fishing around for a buyer.  The article does a reasonable job of summarizing its financial history and aspects of its controversial existence...

Just FYI that any WSJ link requires a subscription to read. They're a bit ridiculous in that way, believing such an impenetrable firewall is good for business.

[DonRocks]

Just FYI that any WSJ link requires a subscription to read. They're a bit ridiculous in that way, believing such an impenetrable firewall is good for business.

This merits a separate topic, and one that I'd enjoy reading. I'm of the impression that the folks at wsj.com are pretty on top of what works, and I'd be surprised if their firewall was bad for business (if it is, I suspect they'll change it or get rid of it). I, too, get extremely frustrated trying to read wsj.com, but I'm essentially trying to get information out of them for free, and I am of no use to them. Why shouldn't they keep me locked out?

I do think that paywalls are terrible for total readership, but readership does not equate to dollars, not unless the readers click on ads. I suspect Wall Street Journal has concluded (for now) that a tiny number of paying readers is worth more than a huge number of non-paying readers.

[darkstar965]

OK.

Your assumption about "the folks at wsj.com" being "pretty on top of what works" is utterly reasonable, but misplaced. It's not so black and white in terms of "non-paying readers"; lots of grey. Businesses of all kinds are operated at a loss for different reasons and not just due to incompetence or the usual drivers of business failure. In the case of the WSJ, have to remember the Bancrofts sold the esteemed brand to a foreigner in large part because they couldn't operate it profitably. Today, News Corp and Rupert Murdoch control the Journal. This article, from the less-restrictive Guardian, may help.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/07/rupert-murdoch-wall-street-journal

As to your very reasonable question, "Why shouldn't they keep me locked out?" it's a matter of business and marketing strategy and not one of ethics or fairness. My personal view, informed by experience, is that audience size and audience quality both matter. And, sampling is an important way to build both. In traditional broadsheet businesses like the Journal, WaPo and NYT, it's much more common to operate partial firewalls (like ESPN's "insider" program or certain "premium articles" only available with a subscription) or to limit the number of "free" articles than can be accessed from a specific IP address before requiring someone to pony up the subscription fee.

These are issues still very center-of-plate in large corporate media boardrooms. The WSJ has always been a bit of an outlier on pricing model but not one that has inspired much followership in the industry, with good reason.

[DaveO]

I have to agree with darkstar that the assumption is reasonable but if not misplaced, should be made with a healthy dose of skepticism.  I come at that perspective from at least one different review of newspaper internet paywalls and methods to monetise the institution(s).

When the Post was sold there was a good bit of coverage of comments from Donald Graham.  In reviewing the long term slide of Post revenues during the web era he referenced a fairly recent decision made by his niece, Katherine Weymouth the last publisher under the Graham regime and Donald Graham's niece.

It had to do with their method of a paywall   (limit on free articles) as most newspapers that establish paywalls tend to use.   Weymouth was for it and Graham was against it.  As of the date the paper was sold, he still had no clear picture if the paywall was a net positive or negative.

Its a tough call.  The internet world is constantly evolving and newspapers struggle with all these decisions.  What works best???   Hard to determine.

[Lydia R]

I don't know how WSJ determines which articles are accessible by all and which are behind the pay-wall. I originally subscribed to WSJ before it was on-line and always felt mocked by the growing pile of unread papers in my office. When it was first offered, I eagerly changed my subscription to paper-less and have benefited from the on-line research tools.  Other than the wine column that gave Don heartburn, the reporting is thorough and well-written.

For example, yesterday's edition had an article entitled: Restaurants' Secrets to Keeping VIP Diners Happy by Alina Dizik. While some of the information is well-known to even casual readers of DR.com, some were new to me (e.g., Seven Rooms, LDV Lifestyle, and Table8).

To court the many out-of-town executives traveling to Washington, D.C., ThinkFoodGgroup uses Table8, an app that enables users to pay for last-minute reservations during peak dining hours. Top diners, whether they are referred through the app or not, are assigned to the restaurant's most experienced servers rather than seated by section, says Stew Newbold, director of restaurant operations at ThinkFoodGroup, which owns Washington-area restaurants including Zaytinya, Oyamel and Jaleo. More advanced servers are better able pick out natural interruption points during service, Mr. Newbold says. As soon as a VIP customer arrives, an email alert goes out to a half-dozen employees.

I'd be interested in knowing if this article and the link to the WSJ blog in the quoted section are behind the pay-wall or open access.

[DonRocks]

I don't know how WSJ determines which articles are access able by all and which are behind the pay-wall. I originally subscribed to WSJ before it was on-line and always felt mocked by the growing pile of unread papers in my office. When it was first offered, I eagerly changed my subscription to paper-less and have benefited from the on-line research tools.  Other than the wine column that gave Don heartburn, the reporting is thorough and well-written.

For example, yesterday's edition had an article entitled: Restaurants' Secrets to Keeping VIP Diners Happy by Alina Dizik. While some of the information is well-known to even casual readers of DR.com, some were new to me (e.g., Seven Rooms, LDV Lifestyle, and Table8).

I'd be interested in knowing if this article and the link to the WSJ blog in the quoted section are behind the pay-wall or open access.

The article "Restaurants' Secrets to Keeping VIP Diners Happy" is behind the paywall, but the link for "last-minute reservations during peak dining hours" is not.

[Bags]

The article "Restaurants' Secrets to Keeping VIP Diners Happy" is behind the paywall, but the link for "last-minute reservations during peak dining hours" is not.

The easy way around WSJ's paywall is to access the article through Google.  For example, paste  "Restaurants' Secrets to Keeping VIP Diners Happy" into Google, and the first link will take you to the WSJ article without a paywall.  This typically works for anything on WSJ.com

[DonRocks]

The easy way around WSJ's paywall is to access the article through Google.  For example, paste  "Restaurants' Secrets to Keeping VIP Diners Happy" into Google, and the first link will take you to the WSJ article without a paywall.  This typically works for anything on WSJ.com

Yes, I think I've noticed this "loophole" for other websites with paywalls, too (innocently, I will add - I've never thought about actually plugging an article into Google).

[Tweaked]

Two small points:

Rupert Murdoch, while he got his start in Australia, has been a naturalized US citizen since 1985.  So the Bancrofts didn't sell the WSJ to a foreigner.

The Wash Post pay wall is so easy to get around, it's basically useless.  

[Mark Slater]

Private browsing on Firefox easily circumvents the paywall on WashPost.com