WSJ iPad Pricing Model Is Bad News
AFP reports that the Wall Street Journal plans to charge $17.99 a month ($216/year) for an iPad subscription. This pricing model is hard to explain, given other WSJ subscription plans. And I worry that such extreme subscription plans could cloud the iPad debut and doom product adoption.
What are the various pricing schemes for the Wall Street Journal?
- ~$20 a month for WSJ newspaper ($249/12 months via Amazon)
- ~$18 a month for WSJ newspaper + online ($2.99/week, annual subscription)
- $17.99 a month for the iPad (per the AFP article)
- $14.99 a month for Kindle (per the AFP article)
- ~$11 a month for WSJ newspaper + online ($2.69/week, introductory pricing, annual subscription)
- ~$10 a month for WSJ newspaper (print, $2.29/week, introductory pricing, annual subscription)
- ~$10 a month for WSJ newspaper (print, $2.29/week, annual subscription)
- ~$8 a month on the iPhone, iPodTouch and BlackBerry ($2/week)
- ~$8 a month for online-only ($1.99/week, introductory pricing, annual subscription)
- ~$8 a month for online-only ($1.99/week, annual subscription)
An electronic version of any publication should not cost more than its printed version due to the almost-zero per unit distribution cost associated with the electronic version. Period.
The iPad is more like a small computer than a phone in its reading area. As such, it should not require device-dependent applications to access Internet content: this balkanization of the Internet is not a GoodThing. Computer software/hardware balkanization was the impetus for Sir Tim Berners-Lee to develop hypertext protocol and the web in the first place!
News isn’t like a song: we don’t read a story over and over again. The iTunes model isn’t going to salvage the news media’s business model.
:: wiredpen permalink
:: Follow me on Twitter!
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Subscribe to Comments
Follow us on Twitter
Get email updates
2 Comments, Comment or Ping
Greg Rasa
This is not particularly hard to explain. WSJ has always positioned and priced itself as a premium buy. Its print subscriptions have been historically steep compared with other national newspapers. You can’t even access WSJ articles via Lexis/Nexis, for example, without having to pay, and only recently did WSJ ease some very strict rules regarding how we other newspapers could reprint their content.
In their view, their pricing reflects the great inherent value of their content, and I’m pretty sure they would argue that your point about almost-zero per unit distribution cost is beside the point — not just from their perspective, but also in the view of their end user. The audience that has always wanted/needed the Journal’s particular content has always been willing to pay for it, and presumably will continue to do that no matter the delivery system.
One might argue that pricing the iPad feed the same as print+online seems odd, until you consider the iPad’s potential as a game-changer. A typical WSJ reader might get on the train in Westchester County, read the print edition until he/she gets to Manhattan, then consult the online edition the rest of the day. With the iPad, a reader can simply use the same platform all day. The pricing actually makes perfect sense.
For a company with a portfolio of products, pricing is always a tricky proposition from one other perspective: opportunity cost. Price the iPad offering too cheaply, and people might quit taking the higher-priced print product — and the bottom line takes a hit. Also, keep in mind that print is still the vehicle where most newspaper advertisers want to be.
WSJ has always been a special case in terms of pricing/reuse and audience, and therefore is not the best example in the broader sense of how newspapers will/won’t/should be priced via iPad.
Apr 5th, 2010
Reply to “WSJ iPad Pricing Model Is Bad News”