One thing I don’t understand about the empire is that I have at least three different identities, all with different data-sets and rules (one here, one at Myspace, one at WSJ Online). Online seems to be struggling with the alternatives of allowing anonymous postings versus the theoretical quality advantages of having people use their real names. Easy way out would be to simply copy Amazon’s solution (allow both).

I think they need to find synergy with the properties they already have before looking for ways to nickel and dime their users to death.

With a single userid I use almost every product Google has, yet I also pay $20 a year for extra storage for photos etc.

A lot of WSJ subscribers are either investors for who the fee is no big deal, or business people paying through a company. If they are to build a sizable “community” beyond that they need to take into account their average users of such a group (e.g. just folk looking to supplement content of their own failing local papers).

WSJ is lucky to have such a well-to-do base, but moving beyond that might be tricky, or impossible to find the best line between what to give away and what to charge for. I think it was recently reported that the current WSJ model was more a lucky guess than anything else.

At some point, it’s best to, as my father used to say: do something even if it’s wrong.