Why WSJ? Why?

Just yesterday, I wrote about journalism’s need to reset the anchor price for online journalism from $0.00 to… well, anything.

Now, the Wall Street Journal (disclosuer: where my wife works, but not on anything related to this), has decided to release an iPhone app, like the one from the Times, for free. Content that would be paid on the Web (the Journal, remember, is the only paper that got its charging-for-the-Web strategy right), is now free on the iPhone.

But, why would you take a venue like the app store, where there’s an existing and basically frictionless micropayment system, and give away your content — in a spiffy and handy new interface — for free? To put a little banner ad on the bottom of the screen?

I suppose the Journal can later add a paid version, without the little banner ad, but why set the expectation that your content is free on the iPhone? It’s not like they need the publicity or to remind readers that they exist. They provide a valuable product, but are signaling to readers that it’s worthless.

As I’ve mentioned, perhaps ad nauseum at this point, there will even be a way to do subscriptions through the app store when the next iPhone OS launches. This could become a nice little revenue stream for the Journal. And plenty of other publications. But no, free.

I guess my interests here as a journalist who would like to see the entire industry not go under are pretty thoroughly at odds with the interests of the average reader. And, as a reader, I suppose I’m happy to have the new app. I downloaded it immediately, and it seems pretty cool. But it’s not in the long-term interest of anyone who cares about the news to see the industry miss out, time-after-time, on ways to be profitable.

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe these tiny iPhone ads are a friggin’ BONANZA. Somehow, I doubt it.