Blog Post

WSJ’s McLeod: ‘No Brainer’ To Charge For Mobile; ‘We’re About To See What Really Works’

While others stress over whether to try paywalls and fees, the Wall Street Journal does the Murdoch March to its own drummer. Or, as Gordon McLeod, the president of the Wall Street Journal Digital Network, says, “to us, it

2 Responses to “WSJ’s McLeod: ‘No Brainer’ To Charge For Mobile; ‘We’re About To See What Really Works’”

  1. It is important for on-line and mobile businesses to join the real world; one in which users are charged for products and services. The mindset that digital content must be free developed, not because of a particular business strategy, but because there were no decent billing options. These have matured in the last few years and good options have appeared. My own company transacts thousands of times, with users each day. Our billing weapon of choice is currently Premium SMS. Our dictum is: "If a service has some value to a user – then they should pay for it. If they're prepared to pay for it – Love Them To Death" It limits uptake obviously. In fact it limits uptake by 97%. Although it's a huge reduction in user base, it means each user has a real value and, in turn, they place real value in your content or service. While no-one has really defined Web 3.0, I am certain that it will contain much better transactional capability than Web 1.0 and 2.0. The transactional tools are there, CC, PayPal, ITunes, Premium SMS. Users like Abernathy may not like it, but for digital business to survive in the future transactions are crucial. But maybe WSJ and others need to think "What do I give Abernathy in return for his payment." And thus the game gets lifted to another level.

  2. Abernathy

    I don't know if it was the editorial changes, or what, but I stopped using my BB WSJ app months ago. Now I read that they want me to pay for it. I wish they could know that I just deleted the app from my BB.