Has the Times Paywall Worked?
-
Allan
2 years ago -
1218
views
An update on my previous blog post about whether you’d want to pay Newscorp for news.. Maybe it’s because I’m essentially a news junkie that I said I would happily pay, but now we have some hard data about how many heads are actually being banged against the Times Paywall.
Times Newspapers released stats saying that 105,000 customers paid to visit the Times and Sunday Times websites since the Paywall went up while another 100,000 have taken out a subscription to read the papers online as well as in print. So does that add up success?
205,000 isn’t a bad “circulation” figure for a quality broadsheet – The Independent gets very excited about achieving those levels! If nothing else, this must be an encouraging start for Newscorp. It is after all the first time in newspaper history that any publication has persuaded anyone to pay for a format other than print. The real test of course is the bottom line and whether the Paywall will deliver more revenue than when content was freely available online. That 105,000 figure doesn’t just include those who have paid directly. It also includes those who have paid for the more expensive iPad app or via Amazon’s Kindle, but Newscorp haven’t revealed the split.
It’s not certain therefore just how “sticky” these paying customers are and whether or not they renew their subscriptions or if they are “one time hits”. Around half of the customers are paying monthly (£8 for the website or £10 for the iPad app) and the rest are paying £1 for a day’s access. On top of that there will still be some advertising revenue to be factored in too. Estimates suggest all that amounts to around £7 million in revenue post-Paywall.
It’s reckoned that the size of the Times online audience before the Paywall was more than 20 million a month. Nielsen (which uses a panel to measure web audiences much as it does for TV viewing figures) reckons the true figure in the UK was 3.1 million. Using that lower figure suggests that the Times has suffered a drop in its online audience of more than 90%. However the same Nielsen study also implied that those who remained were more valuable to advertisers. These people are reading more of the paper and tend to be much better heeled financially than the plebs who used to skip through the free site.
The upshot of all this appears to be that, so far at least, Times Newspapers is nowhere near generating the same revenues from its Paywall than when its website was free. That’s not to say the initiative has failed. It’s shown that there is indeed an audience (albeit a small one) out there willing to pay for digital content. Other newspapers may also seek to imitate the Times by adding tablet PCs as a paid platform.
However, one unforeseen consequence in all this may be the attitude of the content originators – the Times journalists themselves. There’s a feeling that The Paywall has cut journalists and authors off from the online conversation. I wonder how many fine Times reporters and columnists are secretly fuming about the fact that their rivals seem to be basking in all the online buzz around their stories whilst Times journalists are hidden away behind the Paywall?
So the consumers may not be that upset about the Paywall experiment, but I suspect some of the producers may still be a little uneasy….
8 comments so far to - Has the Times Paywall Worked? -
More fool them (those that have decided to pay). Personally, I was, and still am, hoping whole thing fails.
There are so many ways to pad out circulation figures. They’re not 205,000 that you’ve quoted here.
By best estimates you could say that the Times / Sunday Times paywall experiment is surviving rather than prospering.
Some people are paying to read the products online and on the iPad … but the refusal of News International to release any exact data with current monthly numbers makes it infuriatingly difficult to come to any real conclusions, and the fact that they don’t makes you think the worst.
There are somewhere between 20,000 and 150,000 people reading Times and Sunday Times online in one form or another each month (the full actual paying number will be closer to low end). ’Many of these early adopters live in the UK, are relatively affluent and engage with the products regularly’ … is that enough to convince advertisers that they want to come (or stay) on board?
News Int will be hoping so, because although it’s early days, even looking at the cash take from the subscription numbers in a uber-optimistic way, the Times and Sunday Times behind a paywall still looks a way off becoming a self sustaining subscription business.
For full report read Tim Ganfield’s report on Beehive City: http://www.beehivecity.com/newspapers/times-paywall-105000-digital-sales-doesnt-tell-us-much-at-all11151263/
The 205,000 figure is that given by the Times itself, so for the sake of starting from some numbers they are as good as any. I don’t think I suggested it’s propspering, but even reduced numbers of the right kind of visitors (i.e the affluent early adopters you mention) would still prove attractive to advertisers. My feeling remains that Muroch will stick with it and make it work as a self-sustaining subscription business, no matter how long it takes and no matter how long that has to be subsidised. I’m more intrigued by the prospect of many leading Times and Sunday Times journalists deciding to leave if they feel they can’t get the kudos, recognition or the connections they got previously.
I wasn’t disagreeing with you. I realize you weren’t saying they were prospering. Just the figures aren’t correct. The ones given by the Times aren’t real figures. Most magazines/newspapers massage their ABC’s by use of ‘bulks’ and other methods. I thought you’d be interested to read the other article. I’ve been following the Times Payroll issue quite a lot and thought I’d share what I’d found. If it didn’t come across like that I’m sorry – I’m at work and on press deadline so a bit rushed.
I have worked in the media and primarily magazines and newspapers for years. I find the current problems of our independent free press particularly The TImes, The Guardian, The Telegraph and The Independent really frightening. The Times loses about £200,000 a day every day. Without a proper independent investigative press, democracy doesn’t exist so it’s vitally important that newspapers find a way to survive financially.
I
Emma – No worries. I used to say that “readership” was at least three times the ABC-audited circulation figures – but then that was only because I was a trade mag editor trying to give the ad sales guys a credibilty boost. Send me your CV: allan.bisset@freshegg.com – how do you feel about working in Worthing?
I’m booked up till the end of the year with freelance work but would definitely be interested in Worthing. All my work is currently in London and I commute 25 hours a week to do it Will send my cv tomorrow. Still travelling home and on phone right now. Your SEO stuff is v impressive.
Just seen another post this morning which makes further interesting reading: http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2010/11/the-times-paywall-and-newsletter-economics/
I follow Alan Rusbridger (Guardian editor) on Twitter @arusbridger who often tweets interesting links on such things.
And agreed if they lose their best journalists then they are equally doomed to fail by talent loss as much as they would from financial loss.
Another comment on the paywall issue from E-Consultancy:
http://econsultancy.com/uk/blog/6798-what-are-we-to-make-of-the-times-recent-paywall-figures?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter
Interesting that they suspect the focus to be on the TV, rather than a widespread adoption for their print business.