[cksample]

Well, I just cancelled my WSJ on the Kindle subscription today. They announced that they jumped the price up to $14.99 a month from $9.99 a month. What's worse, the email that Amazon sent out about it lies by claiming that it's cheaper than the paper version. I wrote an open letter to the WSJ about this here:

http://www.sampletheweb.com/2009/05/23/dear-wall-street-journal-im-unsubscribing-heres-why/

Anyone else canceling b/c of this? What periodicals do you recommend? Right now I'm trying out International Herald Tribune and Washington Post as possible replacements for the WSJ.

Cheers,

C.K.

 

[LDB]

The WP is far to the left of the WSJ. You might find the Washington Times significantly more comparable. The upside is $3.25 per month and the downside is they are not on Kindle, that's an online subscription rate. I don't know where the IHT falls on the scale. It may be comparable ideologically to the WSJ.

 

[pidgeon92]

We are considering canceling my husband's subscription... I have an online subscription that we can share...

For us it would still be cheaper than the print version, which ran about $225 per year... At $14.99, the Kindle version is $180.

 

[L.Canton]

That's really quite the price hike, and I'm curious what their reasoning is for that, and how they plan to justify it.

 

[SusanCassidy]

I hope you mean the WSJ when you say "they".  I just read that all the WSJ online prices went up by 50%.  Many, if not most, newspapers are having financial troubles, and price increases are one way they are keeping from going under.

 

[cksample]

Actually, the WSJ was the only newspaper last quarter whose circulation went up rather than shrinking, so I have no idea why they suddenly upped the price. I'm more upset about the fact that the email about the change lied about the cost of the Kindle edition vs the print edition of the paper. It just doesn't make sense to keep getting the Kindle edition when I could get the paper version or the online version cheaper, and it doesn't make sense to get the paper version when it's a lot of wasted paper and gas to distribute it and I can get the online version cheaper, and it doesn't make sense to get the online version considering I'm staring at a computer screen all day long and reading on the Kindle gets me away from that and rests my eyes a bit.

 

[geoffthomas]

When I lived abroad I read the London Times and the IHT.  But that was back in the 70s.
As of 2003, the IHT is completely owned by The New York Times Company, after that firm purchased the 50% stake owned by the Washington Post Company.
It was neat originally to have a European slant on a paper owned by two "different" US papers.
Not sure how the writing is now that the NYT owns it solely.

 

[r0b0d0c]

I hope you mean the WSJ when you say "they". I just read that all the WSJ online prices went up by 50%. Many, if not most, newspapers are having financial troubles, and price increases are one way they are keeping from going under.

By this logic, GM should have saved themselves by bumping up the MSRP of their cars by 50%. Same rationale, and same results - marked decline in sales.

Amazon's e-mail said that as a previous subscriber, the 50% markup in subscription price takes effect after the next 2 billing cycle months. I'll cancel then. It's marginally worth the download convenience at $10/month, since it was already more pricey than subscribing online.

 

[Scheherazade]

Anyone slightly concerned should cancel just to send a message that this isn't something that people will tolerate.  If they see their subscriptions fall enough I can't imagine they won't adjust their pricing again and then people can resubscribe.  But if people just eat the extra $5/month charge then they and others will be encouraged to do the same.  It's a bit of a fledgeling business and they're going to be feeling out what the market will handle, if people take it then they'll charge it.  People should likely drop their subscriptions -now- since those first two months will be the numbers that they're going to try to push in their board meetings to say the price hike had no effect on subscriber numbers.

I'm fully convinced that if they see a staggering drop in subscribers that they'll back pedal pretty quickly... just not sure the community as a whole will rally together with enough numbers to make it happen.  It's obvious that most people who have a Kindle also have some amount of disposable income and a $5/month charge wouldn't be the end of the world for them.  I'm sure that's what these companies are banking on.

 

[pidgeon92]

I'm more upset about the fact that the email about the change lied about the cost of the Kindle edition vs the print edition of the paper.

My print edition cost more than $225 per year, the new price of the Kindle version is $180. Perhaps it is cheaper in your area, but in Chicago the Kindle version is less than print.

 

[cheerio]

I guess even the digital side of newpapers are in a crunch

 

[LDB]

If you click the link provided it takes you to the letter which then has a link that takes you to a page advertising the print version for $119.08 annually and the online version for $103.48 annually. I don't know if there's any cost to the WSJ for sending it. I do know there is a cost to them to get it into Kindle format just as there's a cost to get it into online format and a cost to get it into print format. What I don't know is the true/actual cost per issue of each of these. I can understand their wanting to recoup the full cost plus some profit. They should. It just seems that without any physical expenses, i.e. newsprint, ink etc., the online and Kindle versions should be less than the newsprint version.

 

[pidgeon92]

If you click the link provided it takes you to the letter which then has a link that takes you to a page advertising the print version for $119.08 annually and the online version for $103.48 annually.

This is an introductory rate:

This is a special offer made available for first time subscribers.

Having been a print subscriber for years, it goes much higher after the first year.

 

[cheerio]

You think with it being digital that it wouldn't go up in price since there are not physical material bein gused, but what do i know

 

[Sweety18]

By this logic, GM should have saved themselves by bumping up the MSRP of their cars by 50%. Same rationale, and same results - marked decline in sales.

That's exactly what I was thinking. The price hike will bring extra revenue but at the cost of lost customers, IMO.

 

[pidgeon92]

The price hike will bring extra revenue but at the cost of lost customers, IMO.

I agree. With so much free content available the price increase will not only lose them customers, but will not encourage new subscribers.

 

[a54ZgZ340r42Ly]

The WSJ is raising the prices of all their offerings. Rupert Murdoch has been quoted as saying the prices have been far too low. This is a man who's lost half of his wealth since last year, and the newspaper industry as a whole is struggling. Expect to see more and more papers start charging for access to their online versions. Newsday already has.

ck, please stop insisting the WSJ is lying. As you were already told, that rate is a "teaser" rate for new subs. After the first year (or 6 months, depending on the offer) it will become much much higher. Cable companies do the same thing with their phone/cable/internet bundles. It's just a way to get new customers. If you compare the Kindle rate to the actual non teaser rate you'll see there is no lying whatsoever. The Kindle version is cheaper.

BTW, the International Herald Tribune is the international version of the New York Times.

 

[cksample]

So it's a year long bait and switch on the paper version's subscription price, eh? Boo.

Also, it's not like they slightly raised the price on the Kindle edition. It went up 50%. That's nuts.

 

[Ann in Arlington]

Low introductory rate with a subsequent hike is pretty standard with a lot of things.  But if you are diligent and willing to cancel, you can usually negotiate to stay at the same rate . . . . .they'd rather have you pay less than none. 

 

[cksample]

Well I've switched over to Washington Post now anyway and am enjoying it.