Wall Street Journal Online Sees Traffic Explosion, Uniques Up 94% Over Last Year Despite Paywall

MediaWeek:

The Wall Street Journal's Web site has enjoyed significant traffic growth of late, while still managing to keep its vaunted--and some predicted, doomed--subscription model intact.

WSJ.com reached 16.2 million unique users in June, a whopping 94 percent increase versus the same month last year based on the company's internal traffic numbers. The site's total page views also surged 45 percent to 150 million in June when compared to last year.

Of course, it was last August when News Corp. agreed to merge with Journal parent company Dow Jones. Then, speculation was rampant that WSJ.com was set to dump its longstanding subscription model and become a completely free site. That speculation was fueled by several public comments by News Corp. chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch, along with the increasingly popular thinking that WSJ.com could not increase its audience fast enough to capitalize on the rapidly growing online advertising market if the subscription model held.

Read the whole story: MediaWeek

Comments

[ebanks84]

Now we know that's a lie. They must have been clicking their own WSJ website links a zillion times a day to get that result. How many of us regular folk has even been to that website?

Maybe they hire people to click the link to get that rating. We know that's propaganda for sure.

[Forest]

Anything Newscorp is a LIE.

[MasterfullyInept]

Uh huh and Murdoch would never lie.

[wadenelson1]

That was my first thought. They're cooking the #'s.

[geobushono]

well all the go-it-alone investors who contributed to the "worst June Market since the 1930s" are going to look to the real sharks for some nuggets........yea good luck....

[richardgordon]

In fact, the reverse is true. A reasonably well informed intelligent amateur who thinks for himself, does his own research and reads widely from a variety of FREE sources can beat the pros every year by a huge margin. Its the suckers who listen to the Wall Street Brokerage firms and rely on their garbage research and their so called "professional advice".

[falco]

And we are to believe these people? Google "Fox News doctors NY Times photos". Seems someone wants to paint a picture for us. So glad so many can see through the charade.

[gavroche]

Well, color me cynical but I find statistics "based on the company’s internal traffic numbers" just a tadly little bit suspect.

[imusintheevening]

The best thing that ever happened to the Financial Times. I for one, will never read the WSJ as long as it is owned by a propaganda peddler.

[darthdarcy]

That's because of the complete economic meltdown and collapse and all these many many tens of thousands of bankers and brokers laid off and looking for jobs..which might be posted in The WSJ..not due to Murdoch's great publishing talents...

[ProfessorDuh]

Or Murdoch is lying again. Which would be the simpler explanation?

[ibsteve2u]

Well, since ad sales and income are directly related to the number of hits you get...

Oh, wait - Murdoch is famous for pursuing truth for the greater good...I forgot.

[mediamarv]

I thought Murdoch bought a newspaper, not a website.
Who cares what WSJ.com does, he was after the print version of the paper. So, this does not seem to be as newsworthy as it might seem.

Anyone able to explain the difference for me???

[sandiegoconservative]

Libs just need a reason to bash Murdoch. They cannot stand the fact that capitalism works and he is a pretty smart businessman.

[Jezdukowski]

Works for whom? You would put the "capitalist " interests of a foreigner above the welfare of your own fellow Americans because they are as you so succinctly put it "Libs". Your hate for your fellow Americans seeps from every single one of your posts - I truly pity you...

[mellene]

This doesn't mean that the subscription rate is up--just that those who subscribe might be reading it online...

[MemphisBuffalo]

Ad revenue is also a big part of the picture. Across the media it is down.

[filo]

I guess some people have more dollars than sense.