The Times paywalls go up...
Discussion
okgo said:
Meanwhile the Guardian are reversing their loss at a startling rate, far more than the times from those figures.... All while keeping everything open.
And as for 70m loss the year before paywall that will be creative accounting and spin and have very little to do with the paywall.
I thought the Guardian lost money hand over fist on their papers - Guardian group make all their money from financial investment?And as for 70m loss the year before paywall that will be creative accounting and spin and have very little to do with the paywall.
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).
Point no 4 above is a good one. I see more comments along those lines to FT than the Times itself.
In fact more comments re must reads to perhaps the Guardian CIF site and places like LSE blogs etc.
I hope none of their writers are paid by the page click or however it works these days.
In fact more comments re must reads to perhaps the Guardian CIF site and places like LSE blogs etc.
I hope none of their writers are paid by the page click or however it works these days.
Tuna said:
I thought the Guardian lost money hand over fist on their papers - Guardian group make all their money from financial investment?
Yep but the deficit is coming down very quickly. They'll be profitable as a paper in next year or two. And that from 40 odd million per year loss 2-3 years ago. 
mediaweek said:
Mike Darcey claims paywall 'vindication' as Times and Sunday Times pass 400,000 subscribers
News UK's chief executive, Mike Darcey claimed "vindication" of the group's paywall strategy yesterday as total subscribers to the Times and Sunday Times passed 400,000 for the first time.
LinkNews UK's chief executive, Mike Darcey claimed "vindication" of the group's paywall strategy yesterday as total subscribers to the Times and Sunday Times passed 400,000 for the first time.
The bigger rise was in subscribers to print and digital rather than digital alone.
The latter appears to account for only a small %age of their sales.
It would be interesting to see
- what their targets were for the digital channel
- what the user base was of the digital channel pre-paywalls
- what has happened to print sales over the same period (pre and post paywalls).
The latter appears to account for only a small %age of their sales.
It would be interesting to see
- what their targets were for the digital channel
- what the user base was of the digital channel pre-paywalls
- what has happened to print sales over the same period (pre and post paywalls).
BlackLabel said:
mediaweek said:
Mike Darcey claims paywall 'vindication' as Times and Sunday Times pass 400,000 subscribers
News UK's chief executive, Mike Darcey claimed "vindication" of the group's paywall strategy yesterday as total subscribers to the Times and Sunday Times passed 400,000 for the first time.
LinkNews UK's chief executive, Mike Darcey claimed "vindication" of the group's paywall strategy yesterday as total subscribers to the Times and Sunday Times passed 400,000 for the first time.
He's had a rough old time of it lately, with payments to officials, with the revelations about his chosen one, and rumours about what his wife was up to.
The open door policy of Blair and Cameron to Murdoch and his minions has suffered a little of late and he wants it back to where it was when Cameron was first not quite elected.
So I've been reading the Telegraph for a while and deleting cookies every 10 articles or so to get around their frankly useless paywall. I won't pay for it because it's becoming more and more like a Daily Mail extension every day, frankly.
However because I use adblock for all my browsing, I am now denied access as they put a holding page over any article if you are running adblock.
Which means bye bye Telegraph.
However because I use adblock for all my browsing, I am now denied access as they put a holding page over any article if you are running adblock.
Which means bye bye Telegraph.
hornetrider said:
However because I use adblock for all my browsing, I am now denied access as they put a holding page over any article if you are running adblock.
Which means bye bye Telegraph.
Shocking, I'm amazed a news service has the audacity to attempt to raise revenue to fund its service. Which means bye bye Telegraph.
hornetrider said:
So I've been reading the Telegraph for a while and deleting cookies every 10 articles or so to get around their frankly useless paywall. I won't pay for it because it's becoming more and more like a Daily Mail extension every day, frankly.
However because I use adblock for all my browsing, I am now denied access as they put a holding page over any article if you are running adblock.
Which means bye bye Telegraph.
I don't normally read it, but it's working fine for me using Chrome and uBlock - no pop ups or anythingHowever because I use adblock for all my browsing, I am now denied access as they put a holding page over any article if you are running adblock.
Which means bye bye Telegraph.
hornetrider said:
So I've been reading the Telegraph for a while and deleting cookies every 10 articles or so to get around their frankly useless paywall. I won't pay for it because it's becoming more and more like a Daily Mail extension every day, frankly.
However because I use adblock for all my browsing, I am now denied access as they put a holding page over any article if you are running adblock.
Which means bye bye Telegraph.
Curious, I run adblock and have no such problem. Sure, I get the holding page, but only after a number of freebie views. I'm an ex DT subscriber , and have found that most intrigueing headlines are available elsewhere in full, as a freebie. Sometimes even on that hysterical tome the Gruanaid (its ok if you stick to article and don't wander off to other nonsense). However because I use adblock for all my browsing, I am now denied access as they put a holding page over any article if you are running adblock.
Which means bye bye Telegraph.
The DT has been a great paper, its sad to see it emasculated in such a way. To be honest, the only news portal left thats worth subscribing to is the FT , the rest all fall down for one reason or the other, although perhaps the Times itself maybe a reasonable compromise.
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...
Funk said:
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...
Similar here. Looking at either just doesn't even register now, whereas I used to. Occasionally click a link, look for a few seconds and then go away, but that's it.I don't miss it and I guess they don't miss me...
Do they care, probably not, but neither do I.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff