I’ve been reading the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) ever since my undergraduate days – in the ‘80s, when the newspaper was assigned as reading for my Economics 101 class. Since then, it’s been a staple of my life and a way to keep in touch with the world while taking a break from the luminescent blue screens of the seemingly ever-present computers and TVs. I was one of many that wondered what would happen when Rupert Murdoch, a colorful media mogul that counts the Fox News Channel and the tabloid paper Star in his holdings, acquired this venerable publication. Since then I’ve witnessed the addition of a sports section and a weekly crossword to the WSJ, along with a continuation of fair and honest reporting. Clearly, if you are a business person but need to cut back your reading to one paper, the WSJ hopes it will be the one. All it needs now is Dear Abby and the comics.
Nothing however prepared me for the shock I received in the mail yesterday when I opened a letter from the Wall Street Journal. “Renewal Savings Notice,” it proclaimed, along with an offer to add a year to my subscription at the wonderful price of $8.49 per week. That’s $441.48 per year – almost enough money to buy both of my younger sons a season pass at their favorite ski area – and nearly three times the amount I paid last December for a year subscription – $149.00. (And yes I know this because I tired years ago of publications counting on me to forget that my subscription is not yet up for renewal, to get me to ante up for another year or two of money way ahead of time. I track this stuff.)
My first thought was wow, I guess they needed to raise the prices – after all it is common knowledge that the newspaper business is fighting a mighty battle to survive. Even the local Boston Globe has undergone turmoil when its owner, the New York Times Company, recently demanded that unions agree to $20 million in cost savings or else it would shut down the paper. But a 300% increase?
This morning I thought I’d see what the WSJ is charging for a subscription, if you order new through the website. Well here was the greatest surprise of all. The great rate offered online is $2.69 per week –$139.99 per year- for the exact same thing. My husband says to me, well that’s just the introductory rate – they won’t give it to me. Well he may be right, but heck I’ll pay my neighbor $50 to subscribe on my behalf and still save $252. Maybe I’ll even take her out to lunch too.
What’s going on here? On reflection, I’m guessing that the WSJ was hoping that I would re-up subscription and just submit the bill to my employer. Or maybe they figure this approach is the way to figure out who is just going to pay and move on. Gosh, reminds me of business class versus coach airfare – where there is also often a 2x – 3x premium for folks willing to pay it. I admit, I’m small and so coach is not a big deal for me. If I were 6’ and 250 pounds I’d probably feel quite different.
But what about the WSJ? Will businesses fall for it and pay 3X the price? I know one thing for sure . . . . I won’t be, and I’m not going to just pass the buck to my employer either. And I hope my procurement colleagues will consider trends like this when looking for cost savings. Figuring out what’s behind a curious pricing schema can be a very productive way to drive savings.
Comments or opinions expressed on this blog are those of the individual contributors only, and do not necessarily represent the views of Gartner, Inc. or its management. Readers may copy and redistribute blog postings on other blogs, or otherwise for private, non-commercial or journalistic purposes, with attribution to Gartner. This content may not be used for any other purposes in any other formats or media. The content on this blog is provided on an "as-is" basis. Gartner shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever arising out of the content or use of this blog.