The Times paywalls go up...
Discussion
Seems they're determined to bury their digital business - they're doubling the monthly subscription. I wonder how many of the handful of readers they still have will stick around?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/feb/23/times-...
It also does not break down the iPad and Kindle readers, many of whom had been paying for the app (or edition) digitally since 2008 (pre-paywall). I wonder if we can find out how many times the iPad app has been downloaded? By stripping that out, we'd have a more accurate picture of the number of 'traditional' online subscribers (ie. through the website).
ETA: Give that they were touting figures of 105,000 a year ago, an extra 14,000 readers a year is pitiful, even if they've subscribed monthly.
ETASE: I wonder how many of those subscribers are other hacks/bloggers/newsdesks who need to keep an eye on the competition?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/feb/23/times-...
Grauniad said:
Digital subscriptions to the Times and Sunday Times will double in price to £4 a week next month.
The online paywall went up around the News International broadsheet papers in June 2010 at the cost of £1 a day and £2 a week.
News International's "digital pack" now includes access to its websites as well as its smartphone and tablet editions.
Users who subscribe before 1 March will have the price frozen at the £2 a week level until next year.
"The price of our digital pack has been frozen at just £2 a week, but next month it will rise to £4," News International said in a message to subscribers and registered users.
"Subscribe before 1 March and you'll pay this special low price of only £2 a week until 2013."
The Times has 119,255 digital subscribers, with 114,000 people subscribing to the Sunday Times, according to figures published last week.
News International does not break down its subscribers from different platforms but the digital growth contrasts with the decline in print sales, a story that is reflected across most newspapers in the UK.
The presentation of the figures is very misleading - they have 119,255 'subscribers' (many of whom may have been 'one-off' purchases to see what it's like) and 114,000 subscribing to the Sunday Times. So 233,000 subscribers then? No. it's 119,255, with 5,000 not bothering with the Sunday Times (and again, that's not necessarily long-term subscribers; they are including people who purchased it once in these figures).The online paywall went up around the News International broadsheet papers in June 2010 at the cost of £1 a day and £2 a week.
News International's "digital pack" now includes access to its websites as well as its smartphone and tablet editions.
Users who subscribe before 1 March will have the price frozen at the £2 a week level until next year.
"The price of our digital pack has been frozen at just £2 a week, but next month it will rise to £4," News International said in a message to subscribers and registered users.
"Subscribe before 1 March and you'll pay this special low price of only £2 a week until 2013."
The Times has 119,255 digital subscribers, with 114,000 people subscribing to the Sunday Times, according to figures published last week.
News International does not break down its subscribers from different platforms but the digital growth contrasts with the decline in print sales, a story that is reflected across most newspapers in the UK.
It also does not break down the iPad and Kindle readers, many of whom had been paying for the app (or edition) digitally since 2008 (pre-paywall). I wonder if we can find out how many times the iPad app has been downloaded? By stripping that out, we'd have a more accurate picture of the number of 'traditional' online subscribers (ie. through the website).
ETA: Give that they were touting figures of 105,000 a year ago, an extra 14,000 readers a year is pitiful, even if they've subscribed monthly.
ETASE: I wonder how many of those subscribers are other hacks/bloggers/newsdesks who need to keep an eye on the competition?
Edited by Funk on Friday 2nd March 12:34
As per the Telegraph, they're charging for access through the app. You can still browse the site through the phone's web browser.
I have no idea what excellent 'critical' features they'll offer in order to make it worth paying for the app. I'm more than happy using the browser; more often than not, I've found the apps to be bug-riddled and irritating to use. The web browser's mobile edition of the Telegraph is fine. I don't want video or live football results TYVM.
I have no idea what excellent 'critical' features they'll offer in order to make it worth paying for the app. I'm more than happy using the browser; more often than not, I've found the apps to be bug-riddled and irritating to use. The web browser's mobile edition of the Telegraph is fine. I don't want video or live football results TYVM.
So as The Telegraph prepares to go part-paywalled tomorrow, the readership of The Times drops to an all-time low with a reach of around 5m, placing it below both the Independent and The Evening Standard. It's getting to the point where media agencies are now questioning the benefits to advertisers of paying to appear on The Times Online as despite the impressive '5m reach' figure, it's thought that just 131,000 people receive the digital version, with the main bulk of the readers buying the print edition.
The Telegraph enjoys a combined readership of just under 12m (about the same as the Guardian) - how much of an impact will paywalling parts of it off have on that readership? Currently of that 12m, 1.7m are online. A decline to Times-level readers would be disastrous.
The Telegraph enjoys a combined readership of just under 12m (about the same as the Guardian) - how much of an impact will paywalling parts of it off have on that readership? Currently of that 12m, 1.7m are online. A decline to Times-level readers would be disastrous.
Edited by Funk on Tuesday 26th March 23:37
Tuna said:
Back of fag packet maths says 131,000 online readers are worth about £300 a day in online advertising revenue. Or £37K a day in subscriptions.
If it were 1.3 million, or only half of the subscribers pay anything, the maths doesn't change. Paywall beats ad revenue.
If they were part of the hype bubble that Instagram and Summly have benefited from, the value put on a user base works out at around £20 per 'subscriber'. In comparison, the Times is getting, £100 a year or so.
On the whole, subscription pays more of your bills than giving it away free.
MailOnline revenues have grown to 'more than' £45m. Source: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e581f742-9549-11e2-a4fa-...If it were 1.3 million, or only half of the subscribers pay anything, the maths doesn't change. Paywall beats ad revenue.
If they were part of the hype bubble that Instagram and Summly have benefited from, the value put on a user base works out at around £20 per 'subscriber'. In comparison, the Times is getting, £100 a year or so.
On the whole, subscription pays more of your bills than giving it away free.
Funk said:
The Telegraph enjoys a combined readership of just under 12m (about the same as the Guardian) - how much of an impact will paywalling parts of it off have on that readership? Currently of that 12m, 1.7m are online. A decline to Times-level readers would be disastrous.
So a little over 1/10th of their readership is getting them next to nothing. Do you think they would mind loosing that 1/10th if what remained paid its way?Even being generous and saying that those 131,000 Times subscribers are paying the £2/week subscription every week, that equates to revenues of £13.6m.
MailOnline - Free to read = >£45m
Times Online - Paywall = £13.6m (plus ad revenue - which I bet isn't anywhere near £32m!)
TTO had readership numbers very similar to The Telegraph (c. 1.2m) and now has l/10th of what it did.
The paywall model just doesn't stack up. Ignoring revenue for a moment, what about influence and 'reach'? Many have forgotten TTO even exists and reader numbers aren't growing. If anything, they'll decline slowly over time.
As much as the newspapers would love to think otherwise, paywalls simply decrease revenue, reach and influence.
Several thoughts occur.
1) The news industry won't want it to be seen to have failed - if it looks like it works for The Times then others will believe it will work for them - there's a vested interest for the industry to say it works. Both The Telegraph and The Sun are paywalled too - not that Sun readers will ever have an interest in The Times' content but perhaps the fact others have followed may have benefited The Times? As mentioned earlier, The Telegraph's quality has plummeted and I rarely bother with it now either.
2) They refuse to come clean about the numbers (not that they ought to, but it's enough to raise my eyebrows). Everything is reported as 'print and digital combined'. They're saying that BOTH media together made a profit. That's great, well done to The Times for making a profit at all BUT I would be gobsmacked if that profitability came from the paywalled content rather than print.
3) They were bundling like mad to get people signed up. It would be interesting to know how many stayed after the first month/year etc.
4) Reach and influence - they have next-to-none that I've seen, especially online. I never see links to articles, I never see people saying, "You absolutely MUST read this column/blog/article, it's well worth paying for."
5) It would be fascinating to see how other free digital editions have done ito making money - have they made more than The Times and faster? Is the paywall actually creating drag? It's easy to think a car is fast when it's on its own but when you put it next to something properly quick the context is quite stark.
I have no desire to see any business fail but I remain unconvinced it's as successful as they would like us to believe. If it were a roaring success, they'd be boasting about digital in its own right, the volume of subscribers and that it worked. They're not, they're still hiding behind print which, I suspect, generates most of the income and ad revenue (much like my ex-employer Yell, in fact).
1) The news industry won't want it to be seen to have failed - if it looks like it works for The Times then others will believe it will work for them - there's a vested interest for the industry to say it works. Both The Telegraph and The Sun are paywalled too - not that Sun readers will ever have an interest in The Times' content but perhaps the fact others have followed may have benefited The Times? As mentioned earlier, The Telegraph's quality has plummeted and I rarely bother with it now either.
2) They refuse to come clean about the numbers (not that they ought to, but it's enough to raise my eyebrows). Everything is reported as 'print and digital combined'. They're saying that BOTH media together made a profit. That's great, well done to The Times for making a profit at all BUT I would be gobsmacked if that profitability came from the paywalled content rather than print.
3) They were bundling like mad to get people signed up. It would be interesting to know how many stayed after the first month/year etc.
4) Reach and influence - they have next-to-none that I've seen, especially online. I never see links to articles, I never see people saying, "You absolutely MUST read this column/blog/article, it's well worth paying for."
5) It would be fascinating to see how other free digital editions have done ito making money - have they made more than The Times and faster? Is the paywall actually creating drag? It's easy to think a car is fast when it's on its own but when you put it next to something properly quick the context is quite stark.
I have no desire to see any business fail but I remain unconvinced it's as successful as they would like us to believe. If it were a roaring success, they'd be boasting about digital in its own right, the volume of subscribers and that it worked. They're not, they're still hiding behind print which, I suspect, generates most of the income and ad revenue (much like my ex-employer Yell, in fact).
I don't even bother with the Telegraph now, I have News Republic on my phone which aggregates news from a wide variety of sources based on topics I want to read about. One thing I've been trying to do is read from a broader base, reading things I don't necessarily agree with but being willing to at least read someone else's perspective. It's easy to find yourself blinkered with only one or two sources, not to mention that I, like others, found DT to be heading downhill at a rate of knots.
I don't miss it and I guess they don't miss me...
I don't miss it and I guess they don't miss me...
Derek Smith said:
Yipper said:
The Times / Sunday Times have got 100-200k readers online subscribing at £1-30 a month, so they're taking several million Pounds a year in subscription fees. For a paywall site, they're doing okay (but not great).
Is that readers or subscribers?I get it free from a supermarket.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff