So who's doing better the WSJ business model or the NY Times? (I've decided to make that my comparison for any research I might do). Two NY papers, with two different target markets. One is more liberal one is more conservative. Is this the difference? I guess this is where I ask what are the benefits of providing free content online vs. some free content? I love to share articles on Facebook or Twitter (@Nesurf11). I've just decided that the WSJ business model is better and would be even better if more newspapers followed it. Here's why:
People will always share, especially the younger generation. Facebook and twitter dominate the social media realm and this exposes your business to millions of people maybe not all are going to read it, but this is free marketing for your newspaper. You (NY Times or WSJ) don't have to spend your time having employees think of genius new ways to get the paper out to your audience, because they will come to you. This goes in a different direction - brand loyalty - which I think is the main reason why paper A will eventually defeat paper B.
I read the WSJ because I want to know what the hell is going on financially and I enjoy what I consider a moderate political view. They talk about money and the economy which is the lifeblood of the people and to me this is most important. I would rather read an article that unlike this little babble session has a focus beyond politics. I don't want to read an article where someone tells me that Blue is better than Red or whatever. When you focus on improving the economy, well you have a focus: the economy. Whatever politics it takes to make the economy stronger is all I care about. Okay, enough of me telling you why I read the WSJ.
Back to the real question: Will the WSJ be more profitable than the NY Times? Yes, the NY Times can only survive for so long. By providing free content online they had to raise the price (I'm sure that's not the only reason) of their daily paper. Now the number of people who purchase the daily paper will begin to shrink. When the price increases you will loose your younger readers first because we are the computer savvy generation. We are all you have left, life is a cycle. So eventually papers are going to have to follow the WSJ business model. Times are changing and businesses have to adapt or fail.
Now this means going against the consumer or does it? Not necessarily, I feel like newspapers have become overwhelmed in the groundswell. They feel like they need to provide free content, but, don't people always want the news? I believe that people will pay for the news regardless if it free. Yes there are blogs out there i.e. Newsvine that provide a place for news stories to be posted and commented on, but where do those articles come from? Without newspapers would we have Newsvine? Maybe, but it would be a lot smaller because w/out papers we only have the media, but anyway, the bottom line is that in order for newspapers to be profitable they should follow a business model similar to that of the WSJ.
