While others stress over whether to try paywalls and fees, the Wall Street Journal does the Murdoch March to its own drummer. Or, as Gordon McLeod, the president of the Wall Street Journal Digital Network, says, “to us, it’s a no brainer.” That’s why the company’s surveys of its iPhone and BlackBerry app users this summer were all about how. “The issue for us was about smart pricing, not the issue that everybody talks about publicly, which is do you charge or not,” McLeod told paidContent. The research also reinforced a tradition of charging for Journal content on every platform: “We found out that people would be willing to pay for content they couldn’t find anywhere else, that there was a market for Wall Street Journal content and Wall Street Journal Digital Network content through mobile applications.” But, he added, “in each case and each device, we’re absolutely going to assume that not everybody wants to pay.”

If News Corp (NYSE: NWS). CEO Rupert Murdoch hadn’t jumped the gun during an analyst meeting last week, the WSJ‘s plans to add a mobile paywall on Oct. 24 would be going public around now. Users of the WSJ Mobile APP on BlackBerry started to get notices this week that charges are coming; iPhone user outreach starts next week. A FAQ, also posted online, spells out the differences in content—and it can be considerable. Dow Jones is charging the same for each but the WSJ Mobile Reader is not the mobile equivalent of WSJ.com. McLeod explained some of the strategy, as well as how it applies to other mobile devices like e-readers, during an interview:

—What about Kindle?:  Murdoch has been vocal about his issues with Kindle. The companies have worked out a better rev share deal for the Journal but it doesn’t seem like the biggest sticking point—who “owns” the customer relationship—is budging any time soon, if at all. The iPhone and BlackBerry free apps go through the respective device stores but the subscriptions are managed directly by WSJ, which allows for various bundling options. “That’s currently not possible on a Kindle but there are many other devices coming out on the marketplace. The long-term vision is this is the model. That commerce capability would enable all sorts of bundling that are not currently possible.”

—Pricing: McLeod wouldn’t go into details about how WSJ arrived at the pricing strategy—mobile app is free for those who subscribe to print and online, $52 a year for a single-product subscriber, and $104 for a mobile only. A subscription to WSJ.com will be required for full access to mobile-enhanced w.wsj.com. App users who download and register prior to Oct. 24 will get a 90-day trial. He explained: “We try to be consistent across platforms because much of the same content is available on each, although very different user experiences and very different applications. But as we expand offerings to subscribers and users, we do spend a lot of time thinking about what is appropriate, if we bundle two or more of them together, what would be the stronger value? We do think about extending reach from a print world into a digital world into a mobile world.

“Essentially, our mantra is ‘WSJ anywhere’ and we mean that both literally and figuratively. What is the best pricing model in each case that will drive that business? Certainly, we model and we test like all other consumer marketers to see what will work in the marketplace.”  Beyond that, “we have some research now and we have a business model. We’re about to see what really works ... at this point, it’s all conjecture.”

—Projections?: Asked how the Journal‘s models treat conversions of free users to paid (an ESPN (NYSE: DIS) executive said earlier this week 10 percent was a goal for them), McLeod said, “We certainly have projections for each device, just as we do for print or digital generally. ... Frankly, we put a lot of content online and in these devices that is designed to be free and to be for a broader audience but generally there will be some percentage of the overall population that’s willing to pay for the content.” But, he added, “in each case, the percentages are different. In this case, while we have some budgets and we’ve got some forecasting, we don’t have anything yet.” 

—Peer group: McLeod doesn’t see any kind of standard emerging about charging for niche content online or mobile; the group is still too small. “ESPN Insider, great product. Totally different content. Consumer Reports, totally different business. Zagat. There are a few out there and we encourage all of them and we certainly talk occasionally, but I’ve never seen any consistency nor am I aware of any in metrics. We all price differently. We all deliver differently. We all package differently. Any similar percentages would just be luck.”

—Different strokes: McLeod and his team are keenly aware that the same mobile app won’t work for every device. It’s not just the technology, says McLeod, “they definitely have different users.” The BlackBerry app was first. “We spent a lot of time when we created the Mobile Reader for BlackBerry focusing on what it does best, and how it best presents content and functionality. [Then] we didn’t just clone the BlackBerry version of the reader, we spent a lot more time developing in an Apple (NSDQ: AAPL) framework to see what the best presentation and navigation would be in that format. ...  We also went out in the marketplace and asked what people thought about the devices; nobody’s really done this before so it’s not like there’s a lot of data out there on how to approach this.”

—Mobile Reader is not WSJ.com: The Mobile Reader has more content than the print edition and less than WSJ.com. Each version has some variations: MarketWatch is planning its own iPhone app so isn’t included in the WSJ Mobile Reader; BlackBerry users get info from across the WSJ Digital Network. The behavior differs from WSJ.com; McLeod says the mobile apps will update faster, more often and with more headlines during the day. But the products are designed to be complementary if a user subscribes across platforms, for instance, sharing and saving functionality; eventually, users of both online and mobile should be able to use their portfolios interchangeably, and other features.

• WSJ Asks iPhone App Users If They Would Pay