It looks like The Times is paying a price for Rupert’s decision to take all online content behind a paywall. Figures sneakily (although I like their style!) produced by the Guardian via Hitwise show that they’ve lost 90% of their traffic since they started asking for payment for their work.
I’m guessing News International was expecting a big drop-off but who knows whether they thought it would be so dramatic? I’d caution against rushing to blow raspberries at the mean spirited anti-sharing capitalists. It’s true that the web is such a beautiful thing because of the ability to find exactly the right information for whatever you are looking for and the paywall idea puts a Murdoch-shaped spanner into those free-moving cogs.
BUT we are still in a new frontier and ways of working are still developing. The one thing that is certain is that mainstream media brands have a massive part to play in the information economy and it has to be economical to produce said information.
The mass media has been terrible at innovating in the past twenty years or so. The only competition has been price-cutting, funded by cost-cutting, which means gaps appear in the ability to produce quality information. It’s covered up by using more agency copy, more aggressive headlines, deals with celebrities etc. but people spot declining standards. Less people consume mainstream media and those that still do under value it or trust it less than they have in days gone by.
The paywall is experimental and it can only work by understanding deeply what your audience wants and giving them content that makes them part with cash, content that isn’t just what they can get elsewhere but with a better headline or more sophisticated SEO. They have to build loyalty, investigate more, tell us things we don’t know and actually want to know and create more interactivity within their stories.
I too am no fan of Murdoch but on this I applaud him and if this works you could argue the Dirty Digger has saved newspapers twice! Is this the second coming?!
Newspapers experience on the web for all its reach has been economically catastrophic. The lazy approach of believing that greater reach will lead to more advertising is wrong. Eyeballs wonder and rates are lowered accordingly.
If Murdoch is receiving £2 a week from 10% of his web readers he will probably be happy. If the Guardian achieved that with a reach of 33 million theyd be delirious generating £66m a week.
Interestingly the L'oreal heiress story in France originated and was led by a handful of former Le Monde investigative hacks who took VR and formed their own paid for web news service. It hired a load of cheap youngsters.
They got the tapes of a senior gov min admitting he received euro 160k and published. They continued to piblish and everyone has been playing catch up in France,
Guess what? Their subscription rate went up three times during the scandal.
The future has to be paid for. Good information has value. Quality journalism cannot live on googlejuice!
Re: hypothetical Guardian figures: that makes no business sense – it's like all those young guns pitching VCs who go “well, the market is worth £10 million so if we capture 10% of the market we'll hit £1 million in revenues!”
Also – the “paid subscriber” figures are actually one tenth of one tenth of the original readership. So 1% is actually pretty shit. 30,000 paid-up users (15k web, 15k iPad/phone) coughing up £6 a month on average (don't forget transaction costs, i.e Apple's take) means it brings in enough to pay for 5 journos.
Nice pice.
I too am no fan of Murdoch but on this I applaud him and if this works you could argue the Dirty Digger has saved newspapers twice! Is this the second coming?!
Newspapers experience on the web for all its reach has been economically catastrophic. The lazy approach of believing that greater reach will lead to more advertising is wrong. Eyeballs wonder and rates are lowered accordingly.
If Murdoch is receiving £2 a week from 10% of his web readers he will probably be happy. If the Guardian achieved that with a reach of 33 million theyd be delirious generating £66m a week.
Interestingly the L'oreal heiress story in France originated and was led by a handful of former Le Monde investigative hacks who took VR and formed their own paid for web news service. It hired a load of cheap youngsters.
They got the tapes of a senior gov min admitting he received euro 160k and published. They continued to piblish and everyone has been playing catch up in France,
Guess what? Their subscription rate went up three times during the scandal.
The future has to be paid for. Good information has value. Quality journalism cannot live on googlejuice!
However I bet they are making a lot more cash of the subs than the ads were pulling in before…
Will be interesting to see what impact it has in the long tail on the print publication, will quality journalism win through and boost demand?
Re: hypothetical Guardian figures: that makes no business sense – it's like all those young guns pitching VCs who go “well, the market is worth £10 million so if we capture 10% of the market we'll hit £1 million in revenues!”
Also – the “paid subscriber” figures are actually one tenth of one tenth of the original readership. So 1% is actually pretty shit. 30,000 paid-up users (15k web, 15k iPad/phone) coughing up £6 a month on average (don't forget transaction costs, i.e Apple's take) means it brings in enough to pay for 5 journos.