WSJ.com's future

The Wall Street Journal has succeeded in getting people to pay real money to read content online -- unquestionably a noteworthy achievement. But, is it also a recipe for disaster and irrelevance in the long term? Wired News' Adam Penenberg thinks so, even though he says its print cousin "may be the best paper period."

Why? Because for all practical purposes, the Journal doesn't exist online. Most of its content is invisible to Google, ignored by most bloggers and inaccessible to most people. All are consequences of its "walled garden" business model.

"As importantly," Penenberg writes, "the next generation of readers is growing up by accessing news over the internet, and one place they are not surfing to is WSJ.com. With their habits being formed now, there is little chance the Journal will become part of their lives, either now or in the future."

He argues that "the only way for it to ensure its long-term survival" is to open up its site and its archives to the public and abandon paid subscriptions altogether.

Regular readers have undoubtedly noticed that I link to Wall Street Journal stories quite a lot. You may also have noticed that I go out of my way to find versions that are accessible to people who aren't paid subscribers. It takes a bit of work but I think it's worth it because the content is really good.

A lot of other people, however, probably wouldn't go to that kind of trouble.