Raping Their Future
This posting started off after I read this Media Hack column by Adam Penenberg for Wired on the growing irrelevance of the Wall Street Journal. The gist of the column is that taste makers like blogs are not recommending the WJS to their peers, since they would only be able to read a linked article if they were a subscriber. Consequently, there was a conditioning behaviour that was developing resulting in the WSJ becoming irrelevant. My first reaction was that the article lacked the full picture. Popularity does not necessarily equate to relevance. Take the ultimate online subscription media, a Bloomberg terminal, or even a high brow magazine like the New Republic. Both of these media have an impact that way way beyond their thousands of subscribers. Then it occured to me that it was like as if they banned you from talking about them. For the WSJ, you could easily insert the Financial Times or The Economist instead.
What really annoys me about the FT more than the Wall Street Journal is where they will publish content only in the online or offline edition and they point you to it. Its like saying, you bought your paper, but we're still going to try and squeeze you even more. Its mean spirited marketing that even Dow Jones hasn't stooped to yet...
This posting started off after I read this Media Hack column by Adam Penenberg for Wired on the growing irrelevance of the Wall Street Journal. The gist of the column is that taste makers like blogs are not recommending the WJS to their peers, since they would only be able to read a linked article if they were a subscriber. Consequently, there was a conditioning behaviour that was developing resulting in the WSJ becoming irrelevant. My first reaction was that the article lacked the full picture. Popularity does not necessarily equate to relevance. Take the ultimate online subscription media, a Bloomberg terminal, or even a high brow magazine like the New Republic. Both of these media have an impact that way way beyond their thousands of subscribers. Then it occured to me that it was like as if they banned you from talking about them. For the WSJ, you could easily insert the Financial Times or The Economist instead.
What really annoys me about the FT more than the Wall Street Journal is where they will publish content only in the online or offline edition and they point you to it. Its like saying, you bought your paper, but we're still going to try and squeeze you even more. Its mean spirited marketing that even Dow Jones hasn't stooped to yet...
