About Me

  • I've spent more than 25 years at the intersection of traditional and digital journalism. I've helped to invent ways to read and interact with the news and advertising on computer screens and iPads, and before that, I wrote news stories on typewriters and six-ply paper. I co-founded WashingtonPost.com and hyperlocal pioneers Backfence.com and GrowthSpur; served as editor of Philly.com; taught media entrepreneurship at the University of Maryland; and have done product-development and strategy consulting for all sorts of media and Internet companies and startups. You can read more about me here.

January 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  
Blog powered by Typepad

« Google Makes News (Better). Again | Main | Sliding Toward Irrelevance »

April 22, 2009



The fault newspapers are making is that they continue to persist in believing that their legacy product (the one printed on paper) is the BEST one. The web continues to be an afterthought or a bastard stepchild, instead of reorienting to the concept that the WEB IS IT, which is most people's reading reality these days.

In short, that's why newspapers are dying.

I do applaud you for this article, though. And continuing to be a subscriber.



Angela Connor

If the WSJ and Dow Jones is monitoring its brand in the social media space (google blogsearch at the VERY least) surely they will come across this post and reply to you for all to see how important it is to them to interact with their readers. I will subscribe to the comments to see exactly when that happens.

-Angela Connor


Outstamrt them. Sign up for a new online subscription at the lower price using your dog's name or something...

Bill Smith

They aren't forcing you to subscribe to the print edition (either WSJ or ESPN) because they think it's best, they are doing it because their advertising department needs to keep the hard-copy circulation numbers up. Why? Because their Mad Men don't believe in or understand those Internets.


Mas que absurdo, as pessoas deveriam aprender a descomplicar mais as coisas

Happy WSJ customer

And on top of all this, the WSJ must think that current subscribers are total idiots who don't notice the $99 offers (for print and online) for "new" subs.

I think I've used 3 different names at my home (an apartment building) for WSJ subscriptions over the last several years. Works just fine. $99 (sometimes with 6-8 addtl weeks tacked on) every time.


Keeps getting worse. Today it's between $220 and $312/year, depending on what offer you're lucky enough to land on.

The comments to this entry are closed.