Apparently, all information on the Web does not want to be free: the Wall Street Journal will not, as has been widely speculated, tear down its paywall entirely. Here’s what new WSJ owner Rupert Murdoch told his paper at Davos:
“We are going to greatly expand and improve the free part of the Wall Street Journal online, but there will still be a strong offering” for subscribers, Mr. Murdoch said. “The really special things will still be a subscription service, and, sorry to tell you, probably more expensive.”
I suspect I am not alone amongst WSJ subscribers who active enjoy not having their time wasted by ads. It’s great that the content of the New York Times wants to be and is free, but I don’t really appreciate interstitial ads wasting my 15 seconds of my time. Since my time is worth money, I’m more than willing to pay for not having it wasted. Perhaps Rupie did a little bit of market research and concluded his readers feel same thing?
You pay attention to web ads? How old are you? Between Forbes, NYT, WSJ alone; I’ve seen dozens of ads today. But I don’t remember a single one.
Let me pass on some advice that has been useful over the past 15 years. Internet content is free. Never pay for articles, music, movies etc.
There are plenty of browser add-ons that disable almost all ads – not just popups, but in-page ads. all you see is some empty space. If that’s your cup of tea.
Get firefox. it’s addons stop banners.
/sighing in horror/disbelief people still don’t know about firefox…
“probably more expensive”?!? What in the world?! Has he lost his mind? And just what does he consider “the really special things”? If the Economist and the New York Times can tear down their paywalls, what possible rationale can Mr. Murdoch have for failing to do so, completely?