The Opening Up of WSJ and Economist

0 Comments

John Battelle says that WSJ.com and Economist.com (and by extension their print versions) are irrelevant because they don’t allow deeplinking (due to subscription) and are not part of the blogosphere conversation…first off, I don’t agree with that contention of his. WSJ and Economist’s relevance is not going anywhere…if you’re not reading these two pubs, it is your loss, and no, I’m not being elitist. There are a few things you have to read, whatever happens to the world: WSJ, Economist, New Yorker and a few others are in that category. Maybe 10 years down the line things will change, but not anytime soon…

Agreed, WSJ.com may need to open up a bit more, and become more blogger friendly, and it has started taking steps in that direction: RSS feeds, one-open story a day, and perhaps more such moves will come down the line. They have a smart editor like Bill Grueskin there, who I trust is thinking and working on all of these things. You can’t expect them to abandon their business model one day and move to another…it takes time, and a hybrid and sensible strategy makes sense.

As for Economist.com, a lot of its magazine stories are open online…about half are not. Yes, it does not have RSS feeds, but it is working on it..that I know that for a fact…

One other point I’ll agree with: you need to be more blogger-friendly, and takes steps to open up and be part of the conversation…I’ve counseled that to a few CEOs at some companies, and you’ll see some interesting steps in that direction. Or so I’ve been told…

Comments are closed.