WSJ.com, Now More Expensive!

News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch had a scoop to give some lucky reporter at Davos. The Wall Street Journal online won't go free, as many expected.

"We are going to greatly expand and improve the free part of the Wall Street Journal online, but there will still be a strong offering" for subscribers, Murdoch said. "The really special things will still be a subscription service, and, sorry to tell you, probably more expensive."

And who was the lucky reporter? None other than Wall Street Journal scribe Emily Steel, who posted a blog item with the news, right where it belonged: in the free section of WSJ.com.

Since Murdoch indicated months ago that a free Wall Street Journal site would bring in more advertising, the online media world has worked itself into a tizzy over what it would mean for competitive sites. Earlier this week, BusinesWeek.com editor John Byrne said a free Journal site would be a "check mate" against Yahoo Finance, the leading finance site.

There's no word yet on what the "really special things" are that Murdoch believes will be worth more than the current $99 annual fee. The paper's meatier, Page One stories will likely fall in that camp, as will its archives. The expanded free part will likely include more of the type that would fall in the Weekend Journal and Personal Journal sections.

Whatever happens, it's sure to rankle the feathers of current WSJ.com subscribers, who already pay a higher fee there than at just about any other newspaper. Indeed, there was not a single positive comment from WSJ.com readers on the blog post. "Ok, if you raise the fee and increase the free portion, I will simply unsubscribe and read the free portion," said one.

Whether or not that reader will be satisfied with access to stories like Women in Power: Finding Balance In the Wardrobe but not ones like Developing Economies Face Reckoning as U.S. Stumbles remains to be seen.

by Megan Barnett