The Times paywalls go up...

Author
Discussion

Funk

Original Poster:

26,254 posts

208 months

Friday 18th June 2010
quotequote all
timesonline.co.uk now forwards to the new paywalled Times website. It's a bold (and some would say mis-informed) move by Murdoch to 'protect his news content'. So, how've things fared so far and what does it mean for the other 'papers' who continue to provide the news and commentary for free alongside advertising?

Newsline's article is revealing, to say the least:

Newsline said:
The Times' impending paywall has not only caused a stir in the industry, but has also made a difference to readers already, despite the new site still being in a free preview stage before a full pay model roll out later this month.

Since News International launched its new-look thetimes.co.uk and thesundaytimes.co.uk sites, there have been notable changes in demographics, with more female visits and less male visits than before (compared to visits to Times Online, which is no longer in operation).

More 'older' people are also signing in to the new Times site, as more and more younger readers drop off. However, there has been no significant change in dwell time so far, and the peak time of day for visits to the Times and Sunday Times' sites remain between 9am and 12 noon.

Since the launch, Times readers have increased their visits to other news sites (up 27%), mainly turning to the Telegraph and Mail's web offering, although occasionally viewing The Sun as a substitute.

GfK's research director Gary Roddy, who presented the findings at today's MEP morning event, said it's still "early days" but he hopes to eventually monitor how the paywall will change reading habits and what it will mean for ad campaigns.

Despite predicting a substantial loss of readers, Roddy wonders if "paywall visitors will become more valuable to advertisers?"

Yesterday, Harris Interactive unveiled a new poll for paidContent:UK, which found that 76% of previous Times Online readers are "not at all likely" to pay for access to the new Times and Sunday Times websites.

The poll also showed that 13% of Times Online users rated themselves as "somewhat likely" to sign up, while 4% were "fairly likely" and 2% "very likely".

In terms of likelihood of paying, just 4% confirmed that they were "extremely likely" to pay for the online content. Out of the group "fairly likely" to pay, 6% were men and 2% were female.

Detailed GfK research on the Times' paywall to follow ...
So, in summary - only 4% of the users said they'd be extremely likely to pay. Just 4%. Three quarters definitely won't and are already drifting to other sites.

Further insight into how things may progress:

Newsline said:
The majority of people surveyed (33%), who agreed to pay, said they'd prefer to sign up for the £2-a-week payment model, while 16% would agree to a one-year subscription and 10% would pay £9.99 a month to download the title on to their iPad.

The poll is likely to be seen as positive for News International, which is expecting to lose around 90% of its online audience. Aside from the 4% of extremely likely payers, a significant number of people sit in the middle tier, which may be open to paying for online content.

"This is great news for Times Newspapers, giving it plenty of room to try to convert a larger minority of susceptible readers than previously thought - people who, right now, aren't subscribing for sure, but who may be open to the idea," the MediaGuardian reports.

If the pricing model is to be believed, News International will also be pleased that readers aren't opting for the lowest-value payment. If users sign up for the £2-a-week plan, they are likely to consider a longer-term option, as it automatically renews every seven days.

However, insiders still doubt Rupert Murdoch's paywall initiative. Of the readers who are "not at all likely" to pay for access, 70% said they will switch to another free news site, while 15% will continue to reading the Times and Sunday Times free headline page.

News International launched it's new-look Times and Sunday Times website at the end of May with a limited-time free preview in a bid to entice potential subscribers.

Timesonline.co.uk, which stopped operating today - users will now be re-directed to the new paid-for thetimes.co.uk site, was getting around 1.2 million visits a day in May (according to ABCe).
So timesonline was getting 1.2m visits a day, and 90% of those visitors are expected to leave. How on earth can the head honchos at News Corp think this is a good idea? There's also a yawning chasm between people saying they'd be 'likely' to pay (and if they were to do so, they'd pay the £2/week plan, not £1/day) and actually doing so. It can't be a way of generating money, and the site will be far less appealing to advertisers due to the decreased traffic. That's before we mention attrition rates..

To me, this smacks of 'old world media' struggling to get to grips with the new media market, much in the same way that the film and music industry have failed to adapt their business models to the online world.

Source: http://mediatel.co.uk/newsline/2010/06/17/the-time...

Edited by Funk on Friday 18th June 14:18

Nollub

108 posts

229 months

Friday 18th June 2010
quotequote all
I used to regularly visit the "old" free site and signed up for the free preview of the forthcoming pay site. This week I have had two calls already from The Times - presumably trying to persuade me to start paying for the new site. I have cut both calls short by saying they were wasting their time and mine. There is no way I'm paying for news on the web, there are plenty of other sites where I can get all the news I want. I have been a reader of The Times (the print version) for more years than I care to remember but I may well consider dumping The Times after this money grabbing attempt by Murcoch.

zac510

5,546 posts

205 months

Friday 18th June 2010
quotequote all
I think it's still free for a bit longer but you do need to sign up.

I'm still undecided whether I will pay up myself, but I did buy the print version this morning. I have no issues with paying for news.

Sheets Tabuer

18,900 posts

214 months

Friday 18th June 2010
quotequote all
I wish the mail would follow the example.

10JH

2,070 posts

193 months

Friday 18th June 2010
quotequote all
I'm glad they've archived a lot of their stuff and kept it public.

Will be interesting to see how it all turns out. Personally, I very much doubt it's going to work for them.

Funk

Original Poster:

26,254 posts

208 months

Friday 18th June 2010
quotequote all
The issue is paying for something that others offer - legitimately - for free elsewhere. There's a massive amount of 'churnalism' which is pure C&P - yet do I really consider the opinions and columns of the hacks to be worth paying to read? This will be the only unique content on the site, the rest is generic news using different words (and often slanted to influence the reader in one way or another).

The other issue becomes one of searchability and reach; with paywall sites, it'll no longer be possible to link people to stories unless they too are paying for that content. Most of the archives are, apparently, to be stripped from Google, preventing people from finding and reading their articles online.

The Times seems to be trying to make their site look like an online representation of the paper; oddly, I found this unpleasant to read. Just because it works in print doesn't mean it works on a screen.

I was a Timesonline reader, visiting most days. There were some interesting columns and articles, but nothing I would pay money to read. I'm one of the 90% who's drifted, and I won't be going back.

MX7

7,902 posts

173 months

Friday 18th June 2010
quotequote all
Funk said:
To me, this smacks of 'old world media' struggling to get to grips with the new media market, much in the same way that the film and music industry have failed to adapt their business models to the online world.
I find the allegation of companies failing to adapt to be quite unfair. What happened was that it became possible to download media, and many people did it illegally. Why would a company want to accommodate those people? Of course it hit their business, but I don't see it as a failing, as there was no real way of preventing people doing something illegal. If you want to download films or music legally, you can, although I admit that the companies were a bit slow in the uptake.

I'm not sure what the solution for newspapers is. In 2007-8 The Times lost over £50m, and since then a lot has changed. What alternative is there apart from making it a paying service? I don't believe it'll work, but I see no alternative.

zac510

5,546 posts

205 months

Friday 18th June 2010
quotequote all
I never thought itunes and other pay for mp3/movie sites would work either and I bet you all said that too as you were downloading the latest CD. But there is defintiely a market out there that is not tech savvy enough or keen to pirate that don't mind paying for these types of media online.

They'll be there with their iPad or similar that offers the nice payment portal through a paywall and happily pay for the news.

If you're not interested in news then you're not going to pay for it, so you can go off and read the Metro smile

F i F

43,965 posts

250 months

Friday 18th June 2010
quotequote all
As previously said on other threads I will be one of the 90% who will leave, when in UK I generally buy the print copy, but no longer.

I wish him ill with his venture.

Funk

Original Poster:

26,254 posts

208 months

Friday 18th June 2010
quotequote all
Gaz. said:
Quite simply because 150,000 x £2 is more than 1,200,000 x £0.
It isn't 1,200,000 x £0.

It was estimated that timesonline drew in ad revenue of £15-18m a year. 150,000 users paying £2/week equates to £15.6m. Sure, there will be some ad revenue from that, but advertisers won't be willing to pay massive sums to advertise to 10% of the users they were reaching before. It might be reasonable to assume ad revenue will fall in line with usage, so to perhaps £1.5-1.8m per year.

Either way, it looks like an extremely risky strategy to simply move the income from advertisers to readers.

If only 4% of the users decide to cough up, things look decidedly worse..

zac510 said:
I never thought itunes and other pay for mp3/movie sites would work either and I bet you all said that too as you were downloading the latest CD. But there is defintiely a market out there that is not tech savvy enough or keen to pirate that don't mind paying for these types of media online.

They'll be there with their iPad or similar that offers the nice payment portal through a paywall and happily pay for the news.

If you're not interested in news then you're not going to pay for it, so you can go off and read the Metro smile
You're not comparing apples with apples though. iTunes and 'pay' sites are legit. Torrent sites and Usenet are 'copyright infringement'.

I can read the Telegraph's site or Sky News or DM or.... None of those are 'breaking the law' by being free compared to The Times. Why would you pay for something you can get for free elsewhere?

You'd really, really have to want to read the opinions of the columnists and contributors over and above other online papers to pay Murdoch.

Edited by Funk on Friday 18th June 15:13

CoopR

957 posts

235 months

Friday 18th June 2010
quotequote all
MX7 said:
Funk said:
To me, this smacks of 'old world media' struggling to get to grips with the new media market, much in the same way that the film and music industry have failed to adapt their business models to the online world.
I find the allegation of companies failing to adapt to be quite unfair. What happened was that it became possible to download media, and many people did it illegally. Why would a company want to accommodate those people? Of course it hit their business, but I don't see it as a failing, as there was no real way of preventing people doing something illegal. If you want to download films or music legally, you can, although I admit that the companies were a bit slow in the uptake.

I'm not sure what the solution for newspapers is. In 2007-8 The Times lost over £50m, and since then a lot has changed. What alternative is there apart from making it a paying service? I don't believe it'll work, but I see no alternative.
Utter tripe. It took the music industry 15+ years to get a workable solution to providing music online. People wanted a service, it was technically possible to deliver it, yet the music industry actively refused to provide it. If a business can't adapt to a changing marketplace then it deserves to die.

MX7

7,902 posts

173 months

Friday 18th June 2010
quotequote all
CoopR said:
MX7 said:
Funk said:
To me, this smacks of 'old world media' struggling to get to grips with the new media market, much in the same way that the film and music industry have failed to adapt their business models to the online world.
I find the allegation of companies failing to adapt to be quite unfair. What happened was that it became possible to download media, and many people did it illegally. Why would a company want to accommodate those people? Of course it hit their business, but I don't see it as a failing, as there was no real way of preventing people doing something illegal. If you want to download films or music legally, you can, although I admit that the companies were a bit slow in the uptake.

I'm not sure what the solution for newspapers is. In 2007-8 The Times lost over £50m, and since then a lot has changed. What alternative is there apart from making it a paying service? I don't believe it'll work, but I see no alternative.
Utter tripe. It took the music industry 15+ years to get a workable solution to providing music online. People wanted a service, it was technically possible to deliver it, yet the music industry actively refused to provide it. If a business can't adapt to a changing marketplace then it deserves to die.
"although I admit that the companies were a bit slow in the uptake" rolleyes

zac510

5,546 posts

205 months

Friday 18th June 2010
quotequote all
Funk said:
advertisers won't be willing to pay massive sums to advertise to 10% of the users they were reaching before.
The advertisers will have access to a much more direct and relevant set of readers rather than a bunch of randoms linked in from blogs or twitter that they're paying to give impressions to (as you know this in turn means low click through rate).
As all readers of The Times website will be registered there will be information there for demographic/behavioural marketing too, inceasing the chance of the ad actually being relevant to the reader.

Asterix

24,438 posts

227 months

Friday 18th June 2010
quotequote all
I've just moved my news viewing to Google News now - shame really as I liked the Times site but there's no way I'll buy it.

10JH

2,070 posts

193 months

Friday 18th June 2010
quotequote all
Funk said:
It was estimated that timesonline drew in ad revenue of £15-18m a year. 150,000 users paying £2/week equates to £15.6m. Sure, there will be some ad revenue from that, but advertisers won't be willing to pay massive sums to advertise to 10% of the users they were reaching before. It might be reasonable to assume ad revenue will fall in line with usage, so to perhaps £1.5-1.8m per year.
Any idea how many adverts are they showing? The ad CPMs may rise if they think the paying audience is more valuable.

Wonder how much they earnt in affiliate marketing, they seemed to have quite a few affiliate partners.

CoopR

957 posts

235 months

Friday 18th June 2010
quotequote all
MX7 said:
"although I admit that the companies were a bit slow in the uptake" rolleyes
15 years! rolleyes

fadeaway

1,463 posts

225 months

Friday 18th June 2010
quotequote all
Sheets Tabuer said:
I wish the mail would follow the example.
Good call!!! laugh

Bing o

15,184 posts

218 months

Friday 18th June 2010
quotequote all
Do you get free access if you buy the paper Times in the morning? Or are they asking you to pay twice, or buy something like an itt?

MX7

7,902 posts

173 months

Friday 18th June 2010
quotequote all
CoopR said:
MX7 said:
"although I admit that the companies were a bit slow in the uptake" rolleyes
15 years! rolleyes
" In 2000 Sony became the second company to make music from one of the major labels available for sale on the internet, with 'The Store'."

15 years?!

The companies tried, but because the media was so widely available for free, it didn't work at the time. Anyway, seeing as this thread is about The Times, and discussions such as this always end up arguing the value of IPR, I'll leave you to it. smile

spikeyhead

17,225 posts

196 months

Friday 18th June 2010
quotequote all
fadeaway said:
Sheets Tabuer said:
I wish the mail would follow the example.
Good call!!! laugh
that would leave poor soovy et al with nothing to do in the mornings but work!