'The Wall Street Journal' Owns Their Reporters' Brand
Wall Street Journal, ever the business paper, is making good on that by demanding royalties from books their reporters write based on research they originally did for the paper. The staff find the policy "ridiculous." But even if print is dying, book publishing is relatively viable. Journalists can make a lot more from a best-selling book than from reporting on metro education stories. So it's hardly ridiculous for newspaper to want a piece of it. Consider the success of New York Times trend story heartthrob Warren St. John.
St. John, best known for his thick locks and most-emailed metrosexual story, is working on a book about a youth soccer team in Clarkston, Ga. Universal has already acquired the movie rights for the yet to-be-published book based on an article he published in the New York Times last year.
In light of the fact that St. John's movie deal was worth $2 to $3 million, he only needs the Times for their health care coverage. But the piece was great promotion for the book and subsequent film. St. John, who also wrote a book about Alabama football based on New York Times reporting, is bigger than the Sunday Styles breaches he started in. The Times isn't playing the fool. By letting St. John go on a semi-sabbatical, they got to run a great a story first while keeping St. John under contract.
Wall Street Journal writers are upset about this new deal. But they're forgetting that the paper will also help with promotion. If reporters want to be brands, it's only fair for their papers want to be their agents.
