Random Thoughts...

I've been trying to come up with a really good topic for my next blog post - the last few were just sort of ramblings about current news - but I can't seem to think of anything that is "entertaining, enlightening and informative. " There's a ton of stuff coming out in the news these days about mergers, rounds of funding, new gadgets, etc., etc. But with all the other blogs out there covering this stuff in depth why should my take on the situation matter so much?

The real question that's been racking my brain is, "how do I differentiate myself from the millions (ok maybe not millions) of other blogs covering the EXACT same topics?"

I'm not quite sure of the answer yet but I have a few ideas in mind.

What I'll do for the time being is simply jot down a few of the memes that have been popping up on my radar as of late.

I. Wall Street Journal: To Fee or not to Fee

There are a number of VC's/Bloggers/Entrepreneurs that I really admire who have been talking about the reasons for WSJ.com to go for a free model . BusinessWeek writes one of the most interesting pieces for why it may or may not make sense for WSJ.com to go free. Fred Wilson over at Union Square Ventures has also been writing about this topic since the News Corp./Down Jones merger was announced.

In the end this is going to boil down to a math equation on Mr. Murdoch's desk that will look something like this:

$65million = Annual subscription revenue from WSJ.com online

So the question becomes: At a $30 CPM rate (WSJ could probably get more but we'll be conservative) how many page views would it take to make up for the lost subscription revenue?

Well, let's do the math...

$30 * X CPM's = $65 million
X = 2,166,666 CPM's

Which translates into 2,166,666,000 page views (2.16 billion for those who have a hard time processing that many zero's).

Over the course of 12 months, WSJ will have to serve up 180.5 million pages per month in order to hit that mark. FYI: Compared to some of the larger social networks out there, 180 million page views isn't a lot.

WSJ currently does 1.5 million unique visitors per month - that's a joke when we compare it to some of the larger online financial sites. According to comScore, the top financial sites had the following unique visitors and page views during the month of June:

MSN Money: 12.7 million uniques and 180 million pages viewed
Yahoo! Finance: 10.4 million uniques and 327 million pages viewed
AOL Money: 10.5 million uniques and 206 million pages viewed
CNN Money: 5.4 million unqiues and 50 million pages viewed

Based on this data it's clear that WSJ stands a good chance of replacing its lost subscription revenue with advertising dollars. But, it's still not as "safe" as sticking with a subscription model. The thing that none of these bloggers/magazines have taken into account is the nature of investors.

I was a broker for a number of years and I know from firsthand experience that investors don't mind paying out the nose for good information. And WSJ undoubtedly has some of the best financial editorial on the planet. And with subscription revenue you don't have the ups and downs of ad-based revenue - it's like a utility company, you can reasonably predict how much revenue you'll do each year...that's very comforting for company owners.

Now, that isn't to say that WSJ.com shouldn't begin giving some of its content away for free - I mean, it's pretty obvious that there's going to be a dramatic shift in the investing demographic. As the baby boomers get older, stop investing aggressively (and sadly, begin passing away), this whole web-savvy demographic will take their places as the "investing demographic". This audience won't have a tough time navigating a web site and will be used to getting free access to content.

So to preempt this shift and gain tomorrow's investing audience today, I think WSJ should begin giving free access to some of its content.

Which content should it be? I'm not quite sure.

At the end of the day, yesterday's news is less valuable than today's so maybe giving away older articles would be helpful. It'll allow them to maintain the subscription revenue for those who want their information in a timely manner while still allowing bloggers and those in the non-mainstream press to openly cite and link to WSJ content (which will be very important for building loyalty, brand and traffic).

II. The State of the Web

There has been a ton of talk on this topic...Everybody from Mavericks owner Mark Cuban to the guys over at Read/Write Web have been talking about where we are in the evolution of the web as both a technology and a media platform.

They both raise interesting issues - Read/Write Web focuses more on where we are in the "technology cycle" and Cuban focuses more the entertainment value of the web with respect to its current infrastructure.

The argument that Read/Write Web puts forth is interesting in that they try to map the standard "business cycle" to an underlying phenomenon they view as a "technology cycle". Joseph Schumpeter and other Austrian economists would definitely find this to be a compelling case for their theories with respect to business cycles and economic fluctuations.

Cuban looks even deeper into the technology by arguing that it's not the software that needs innovating but rather the infrastructure (or internet access speeds into the home) is what needs to be upgraded before we'll see another wave of innovation on the web.

I'm not sure who (if any) I agree with yet. I'm still pondering these issues myself but it's definitely forcing my brain to think in a different direction (which I always enjoy).

That's about it for me today, but expect more posts about the "state of the web" throughout the rest of this week/month/year. :)