Rupert Murdoch is right: at some point, web consumers are going to pay for online content. The only question is when and how much. And the Wall Street Journal has an answer: “this fall,” and “not that much.”
The article doesn….

i really don’t have to get the news from the source, a trusted tribesman’s take on it will suffice.

a fine kettle of fish, rupert

I subscribe to the web copy; but I almost always find articles of interest through some other link. But they say to pay or subscribe but very often there is not “already a subscriber?” button or way to log in. So I have to note the article, then go to wsj.com to log in and then find the article. It is frustrating for the time but moreso because it is so unnecessary.

Maybe Google can create a micro-payment toll-tag system…hehe

Depending on their pricing, the WSJ would probably get $5-$10/year in micropayments out of me. So the question is: are there 10 or 20 like me to replace each subscriber (like Jeff) they lose?

My guess is: yes, there are.

This approach will enable the Internet to do what is does best and create a tangible marketplace that goes beyond links which most mainstream publishers don’t fully appreciate yet.

Although I’m not privy to WSJ’s exact plan, its proposal to add microtransactional access capabilities appears designed to widen its worldwide readership beyond only those folks willing to pay $103 per year to access it.

Will having more people much more inexpensively able to access this paid site increase regular readership? Er, yes.

As for Terry’s prediction that WSJ.com will lose relevancy because the ‘ethic of the link ends at the pay wall,’ somebody should point out that the WSJ already is a $103 paywall site. Does anyone really think that it’ll LOSE whatever relevancy it has by markedly REDUCING its paywall price and, morever, finally permitting much more inexpensive piecemeal access behind that paywall? Er, yes again.