Public enema number one
|
|
|
Times loses 66 per cent of its readers in a month
THE TIMES' attempt to charge users for what can be found on the world wide web for free has cost the newspaper's website the majority of its readers.
Rupert Murdoch's flagship newspaper in the UK installed a paywall, which meant that users had to pay to read the content. While the number of readers was expected to fall, it appears that the numbers have been so drastic that it is unlikely to be sustainable.
According to the Observer, the Times now has only a third of its previous online readership.
Murdoch, who controls News International, the owner of the Times, announced the decision last month to install a paywall around the newspaper and its sister weekly, the Sunday Times.
His idea is the opposite of those who believe drawing a mass audience with free news will eventually deliver strong advertising revenues.
The Observer said that in the week following the introduction of the paywall on 2 July, visits to the Times site fell to 33 per cent of its pre-registration level.
However it is not as bad as some had been predicting. Some had thought that the site would lose 90 per cent of its traffic.
Speculation has been that the drop might have been softened by an introductory charge of £1 for the first 30 days. Murdoch wants to charge £1 per day for access to the site or £2 for a week. It is expected that once the special offer is off, the Times will be history.
This is similar to the model which runs the Wall Street Journal. However the WSJ is more of a specialist financial daily and people who read it tend to need it. Who reads the Times? µ
Share this:
Share
In the New York Post story, Rupert Murdoch, who publishes the Post, made a statement that Claudia Naylor, the producer of a show that is under contract with MTV, slept with two men in the band. Untrue and libelous. Apparently Mr. Murdoch is confusing Claudia Naylor with his wife, who sleeps with everybody. She offers herself for the taking to men and women. She has totally broken up Murdoch’s family and is despised by Murdoch’s mother and many of his children. It is said that he hesitates to divorce her because it is alleged that she knows too much about his business dealings, some of which are suspect. Many people don’t know that a lovely couple brought Zenya from Shanghai to this country only to have Zenya seduce the husband and break up the marriage. Zenya wants it all. Once a slut, always a slut. As for the information which she has, if indeed he has committed a crime, he could always plead not guilty on the grounds of drunkenness.
Fighters for Justice
hahaha
let the stupid idiot lose money
the greedy bar steward
i hate all his junk rags anyway - theyre so full of bs
let him learn the hard way
I've seen a few people talk about how less users may mean the same income for the Times, but it's not going to work that way.
When you select (insert media here) to promote your service, you want as many eyeballs as possible seeing your ad (targeted eyeballs are even better). To use the same random numbers; If you've gone from 100 million pairs of eyes to 1 million, your site suddenly lost 90% of its' value to advertisers.
There are a great deal more general news sites without a paywall restricting users for its' content.
This decision will be rescinded or the Times will fold its' website as a useless waste of electrons before the year is out.
doubt it takes all too many subscribers to match advert revenues.
murdoch is looking for the gravy.
You can’t say I didn’t warn you many times Mr Murdoch.
As most revenues in the media come from advertisements it is logical to say that restricting access will only hit ads revenue streams so As I said before ‘Cut Your Nose Off to Spite Your Face’ please do.
Signed Carl Barron Chairman of agpcuk
Well why would we miss something that many of us havent actually purchased or read in many years?
I stopped buying papers about 6 years ago. I stopped buying magazines 4 years ago.
Magazines are especially bad value for money. If you like reading reviews two months after the event.
I read the BBC, absorb the information and build my own opinion on what I read.
Saving the newspaper industry will be like trying to save the twintub washing machine industry. Only a very few will mourn its passing.
The idea that ads can sustain all is passing. The expectation that "on the web" = "free" hasn't, yet.
I think Times Intl has to find a way to tie buying a paper copy to web usage by linking printed editorial to web content very tightly and advantageously to the reader.
Additionally, I think 2 way voucher linking might be a good route to go down as well. Buy the paper get the web free. Pay for the web, print off a voucher for a free paper; something like that.
I sense a littler bit of old, tired scores being re-rehearsed in some of the comment here.
Regardless of which paper you prefer - the free trade Daily Mail, Times, Sun etc or the state sponsored Guardian, Observer and so on, we will all be very much worse off for their disappearance.
I can't understand why anyone wants to see any printed paper go to the wall.
Even the Guardian.
I thought ill miss the catchy/opinionated headlines which I used to glance every other day in passing.But guess what, I dont even miss that now. How wonderful!
On Subject of New, MSN has New Version Coming Out, MSN10. Still in developement, yet recognized by MSN in Official Communique, Took New Service Entire lifetime to Get to Credible Level.
REmember MSN7, OMG or MSN8, lasted year, then MSN9 took stable approach & cut excess, while holding down dial up. Now Relish Thought MSN10, FREE, No Extra Charge. Beats Beggin' Peepers by , ummmm, Lots.
Maybe theTIMES dosn't want to admitt readership Is NEAR Zero. Under Construction, Infastructure in Developement. NEED READERS FAST. Maybe FREE 100 Page Month Account, Keep theTIMES on Fav List.
vondrashek
Saw this with the LA times- raised its price from 25c to 35c, people stopped buying it, bought listened or watched something else.
There is too much competition which are ad driven for this ever to work or bother to pay anything a week even 1p.
It like the LA times learnt are actions easily given up or substituted.
Considering the BBC licence fee is only what £150 /year? Compare that to £104 a year for access to the Times? I know which I would choose - the one that gives me about 2 / hours a day of enjoyment not the one that gives me 30 mins. Ive switched from reading the Times to making better use of my licence fee. I still enjoy my Friday paper edition of the Times though.
Are these valuable users they lost, or is it like a software company "losing" money on pirates who would never buy their product in the first place? I'm guessing the Times hasn't really lost much. Hits alone were a very poor metric from the early days of the internet.
.......for access to the BBC so why spend more money on other opinionated news?
This is why Murdoch hates the BBC, it already has 60 million subscribers that it never has to chase after.
Essentially his newspaper business model is dead in the water.
The only danger is folks being driven to more 'bizarre' forms of so called free news that could be spouting all sorts of ill-informed nastiness.
But I guess they do that already. Daily Mail anyone?