the WSJ is closing its Google loophole

David_Snowball

Nuts. I understand why and totally support their ability to raise enough revenue to pay quality staff, but nuts.

In closing the Google loophole, it won't be possible to get around their paywall by simply searching for an article title and clicking on it from a list of search results.

Happily, it's increasing their subscriber base. Sadly, it will make it harder to link to some stories.

That's just for what it's worth.

David

msf

The article doesn't say whether this change will also apply to Barron's. I'd guess yes and think I've been blocked there too, but it would be nice to confirm.

VintageFreak

hmm...who knows, it could reduce their subscriber base.

I listen to music on Pandora and then Youtube. If I like I buy the CD. If Pandora and Youtube asked me to pay, I would not listen and then I wouldn't but the CD.

Yup! I predict their subscriber base drops and does not increase.

Ted

@MFO Members Just like the saying goes, "all good things come to an end"
Regards,
Ted

rforno

Oh well. Had to happen sooner or later, I guess. We'll have to see how long it lasts. Though I prefer the FT anyway and am a happy subscriber there already.

BTW the NYT[1] just launched a thing where new subscribers also get free premium accounts on Spotfiy. To me, that's a win-win and while I've not subscribed to Spotify, I plan to sign up to reward good journalism. And hey, I don't mind seeing what Spotify is all about, either.

[1] You know, the newspaper that's allegedly "failing" in some deluded assessments despite double-digit growth in subscribers and readership.

Old_Skeet

I guess, our linkster will just have to work harder in pursuit of articles where the links are easily readable without subscription. Recently, some reference sites that I use to be able to access (as recent as this past December) are now subscription based. And, with this, I moved on. It's more and more about ... How do we pump the revenue line since advertising is down? I'm thinking ... Make the readers and users pay. Perhaps, some did ... but, again, I moved on.

sma3

I can't remember how much both Barron's and WSJ cost, but unless your portfolio is only a few thousand dollars, the money is money well spent and beats paying an adviser 1%

Although of the two Barron's is a far better deal for most of us( $52 a year first year). The Murdoc's have horribly dumbed down the WSJ and it's investing articles are nowhere near as good as they used to be.

I keep reminding myself to look at FT

rforno

IMHO the FT is well worth it and doesn't have the same political leanings/coverage as WSJ.

Barrons is, imho, hit or miss -- but if you have excess frequent flyer points lying around, you can probably use them to 'buy' a year's subscription to it (or the WSJ too, probably)

David_Snowball

Ed, for what interest it holds, thinks of the Financial Times as the world's premier financial publication these days both because of its intrinsic strength and Murdoch's decision to thin out the Journal's ranks.

I subscribe electronically, mostly for the longer pieces rather than for the minutiae of day-to-day coverage.

BenWP

The NYTimes has made its paywall a success. Both it and the New Yorker allow reading ten free articles before charging to soften the pain. I dropped Barron's recently and I only maintain my WSJ subscription because it has become amazingly cheap, $49 (academic rate) for a paper that is a shadow of its former self. My mother, who instilled my love of reading in me, told me to read the Times every day and I do. And to think that I'd read articles by "the most dishonest people," and love them.

hank

Good one Ben.

Other than that not much to add. I read news and finance for leisure (or maybe for intellectual stimulation). So most anything above a high school reading level interests me. Got a year of Barron's print for $52 about a year ago. Now they want 3X that to renew. I'd gladly meet them half way in between.

I feel for all the "slime" newspapers. Tough making a go in today's environment. When those few that still have decent organizations left disappear, where will we get our news?

VintageFreak

FWIW, FT is the only publication of its kind I will pay for. I sometimes go read it in the public library. I wish I had more time to read all issues, I would subscribe. Unfortunately I work for a corporation and work like a dog to read it regularly. Good to have MFO to vent once in a while...

davidrmoran

>> Murdoch's decision to thin out the Journal's ranks.

And not only that:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/opinion/the-struggle-inside-the-wall-street-journal.html

BenWP

I want to have the WSJ to kick around; without them, how would I know who the enemy is? Maybe I'll dig around in the archives for some oldies-but-goodies such as, "Who Is Vince Foster?"

Ted

@MFO Members: It appear that Investment News.Com is headed in the same direction.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/

Sven

Most of them wants $10/month for subscription.

Washington Post allows 10 free viewing than they ask you to subscribe. New York Times also doing the same for sometime now.