Report Claims Only 15,000 Signed Up For The Times Paywall

from the enough-to-stay-in-business dept

Last week, we wrote about Michael Wolff's report that the new paywall for Rupert Murdoch's The Times in London wasn't doing so well. However, we wondered if we'd ever see actual numbers. While some publications have been analyzing the traffic drop, noting that it was "only" 2/3 of pre-registration traffic, as opposed to the 10% that some predicted, an anonymous reader has passed along a report from the site BeeHiveCity that claims to have the data saying that 15,000 people signed up for the paywall and another 12,500 paid for the iPad app. As the report notes, "this figure is considered disappointing."

A further analysis of the data by the same site digs a bit deeper. It notes that the two newspapers (The Times and The Sunday Times) both lost a bunch of paper subscriptions in the last month as well. That could mean that the paywall folks are simply replacing the paper version. But, still, we're talking about pretty small numbers. As the report notes, it doesn't look like the online paywall subscribers even come close to replacing the paper circulation decline in terms of revenue -- and (most importantly), the paper subscription declines seem like an ongoing deal. The number of new subscribers to the paywalled digital edition almost certainly won't increase at the same rate. The first week is when the largest single segment was likely to subscribe. If that number only increases by a trickle (or... if it actually starts to decrease, once the cheaper "trial period" is up), the paywall may go down as a complete disaster.

Filed Under: journalism, paywall, sunday times, times of london
Companies: news corp.

Times Online Says Competitors Will Go Out Of Business Without A Paywall

from the a-lonely-existence-indeed dept

As Rupert Murdoch and News Corp. get ready to begin their latest paywall experiments with the Times of London and the Sunday Times, the company has revealed a few more details, and it looks like this particular paywall will be fairly complete. Unlike the WSJ, this won't be a "leaky" paywall. The content will be opted out of Google, and there will be no way to get to it, unless you subscribe at the rather hefty price of £1 per day. What's amazing is that the folks behind this experiment still think it's going to be a huge success -- even as nearly all of the papers' competitors are remaining steadfastly free.

In looking over the details, it seems pretty clear that it was set up by people with a very old school "print" mindset, even though they're trying to add some digital elements to it. Basically, they set it up to look just like a print newspaper. It's very much about "here's the news, now take it." There's little effort to allow the community to actually be a part of things. They do allow comments, but on a limited basis, and then there will be "video and slide shows." This is all about delivering information. It's not about engaging or discussing things. It's entirely "we're the experts, take the news as we see it." I'm sure there are some people who still want that kind of thing, but much of the world seems to be moving towards a much more participatory, community-based model.

Amusingly, the "comment editor" for the Times insists that he'll still Twitter links to stories -- it's just that no one will be able to read them. That seems pretty obnoxious. I know that even when I point to stories here on Techdirt that have a registration or paywall (even if there are easy ways around them) the readers complain. Pointing people to stories they can't read isn't particularly nice. On top of that, the comment editor, Danny Finkelstein, seems to have a bit of hubris about this whole paywall thing. He claims that his competitors, who will offer similar news stories for free "won't go viral, they will go out of business." I guess we'll find out.

Finkelstein, by the way, also seems a bit confused about the business of newspapers:

"We are unashamed about this," said Mr Finkelstein. "We are trying to make people pay for the journalism.... I want my employer to be paid for the intellectual property they are paying me for."

Except, in almost every case, that's never been the case. For pretty much all of the modern history of newspapers, the newspapers were not paid for their "intellectual property." Subscriber fees paid for less than printing and delivery costs. The money was made from selling ads, and the ads were sold because (at the time) the newspapers were the only ones who could bring together a community of local eyeballs that advertisers wanted to buy. But, by blocking that off (in the face of free competition) and limiting how useful the content is (by making it a lot less shareable or worth discussing), basically takes away that value, gives fewer reasons for people to gather, and fewer reasons for advertisers to pay. Perhaps I'm missing something about this plan, but it seems designed to destroy all the reasons why a news publication makes money in the first place, on the confused and wrong belief that newspapers have supported themselves via "journalism" at any time in the past. The journalism brought in the people, and the people brought in the ads. Skipping over those details seems like a pretty big risk.

Filed Under: journalism, paywall, sunday times, times of london
Companies: news corp.

Murdoch Puts Up Some More Paywalls

from the adios dept

Last year there were rumors that two publications that Rupert Murdoch owned in the UK, The Times of London and The Sunday Times -- separate operations, but who share a website and a common owner -- would begin experimenting with a different sort of business model, which actually didn't sound too bad. Rather than charging for news, the rumor was that it would involve a "membership club," where people would be purchasing access to additional benefits -- which actually sounded like a CwF+RtB kind of plan. Of course, there weren't many details, and we wondered what the benefits would be, and if they'd be enough to make it worthwhile.

Unfortunately, the details look like the rumor was wrong, or the plans changed entirely, because now it looks like both publications are going with your standard everyday super expensive paywall. Starting in June, both publications will begin charging a whopping £1 per day or £2 per week for access -- which is actually pretty steep, especially in a market where there's an awful lot of competition. On a yearly basis, it's only a bit less than what Newsday is charging for its website -- which has been a colossal failure.

Good luck, Rupert, because it seems like you're going to need it. On the other hand, this might explain why the Times Online is already trying to block companies from sending them visitors. It's as if they don't want anyone to know they exist online.

Filed Under: paywalls, rupert murdoch, sunday times, times of london, uk