Counterpoint: quite possibly they look at their large number of subscribers and take that as all the evidence that they need that there is nothing wrong with their subscription process.

Their retention rate is pretty high because the competition can't really achieve the same depth of coverage. This would be a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" situation. Not everyone needs a WSJ subscription. Those that do either have a business plan or invest in a personal plan if they're say, MBA students. For most other people, WSJ is too stuffy and business-focused to be worth the cost.

There's a reason why WSJ is considered gold standard of financial/business papers, and upstarts like BusinessInsider and QZ fall far short and have to target a poorer niche of general-interest users.