FRI, 2:30PM ET
FUL
CHA
FRI, 2:30PM ET
ABER
MOTH
FRI, 2:30PM ET
WER
COL
FRI, 3PM ET
VIGO
LEVA
FRI, 8PM ET
CHI
HOU
FRI, 8:30PM ET
USA
MEX

Has The Times Online Been a Success or Failure?

 Has The Times Online Been a Success or Failure?

In the ongoing saga that is The Times online and its red headed stepchild that is the paywall, some concrete numbers are starting to emerge pertaining to the overall success of the experiment.

First, the good news. According to TechCrunch, The Times online signed up 105,000 paying subscribers plus another 100,000 who were already long time print subscribers during the recent switch. Those are decent numbers for a venture everyone said would fail, but there is a downside to the initial subscription reports.

Now that we know how much The Times were able to gain from June, how many readers fled once the paywall was implemented? According to comSource, The Times lost 4 million unique viewers, or a decline of 62%. Individual page views also saw a steep decline from May, 2010 through September, 2010 dropping an estimated 90% over the summer (that’s 41 million down to 4 million).

For those just skimming the numbers, one wouldn’t be remiss in thinking that the paywall was an epic disaster after reading the site lost 4 million readers. The error in that line of thinking is that those 4 million readers weren’t paying to read articles on the site. So sure, there are less eyes looking at the site, but the ace up the sleeve for The Times online is that even though they lost a large portion of their audience, a fate they surely knew they’d encounter, the readers that remain are now paying a subscription fee to fund the site.

One only needs to crunch the numbers to see whether or not the subscription fees outweigh those of online ads that were viewed by some 4 million more readers before the paywall. In simple terms, what generates more money, online ads to a large number of readers or subscription fees paid by a much smaller audience?

May I warn those against the idea of the paywall that it’s highly likely, at least initially, that The Times online will make more money WITH the paywall than before when articles were free, even with far less people visiting the site. Whether or not you believe the amount of revenue generated to be the only determining factor in The Times‘ success may be left up to you. As I reported in early September, there are other factors to consider.

For the geeks, here’s how the numbers and $$$ break down:

  • First off, let’s say that the 105,000 new subscribers The Times gained in the summer are splt up between full subscribers and ‘pay as you go’ subscribers which pay $1.60 for a days access to the site (full subscribers pay $3.20 per week or $12.80 per month). With those numbers, we can assume The Times generates approximately $7,680,000 per year from its elite group of readers, the full subscribers.
  • 50,000 (readers) x $12.80 = $640,000 x 12 months = 7,680,000

We must also add to that number the casual readers who only ‘pay as you go’, or randomly purchase a days worth of reading on the weekend. This is where it gets tricky, so we’ll take a guess. For the sake of our example, I’ll use Erick Schonfeld’s (TechCrunch) example where he assumes two days a month per person would generate another $160,000 in monthly revenue for a total of $9.6 million per year (there, we added the $7,680,000 to the revenue generated from the ‘pay as you go’ customers).

That $9.6 million is a pretty impressive figure as long as it outweighs what The Times were receiving from online ads when they were free (and remember, the 100,000 we talked about earlier were already print subscribers and thus get free access to the online site simply by activating their online account – so for the sake of the example, we don’t need to include them).

Before we finish, we must first define a CPM, or cost per thousand impression. CPM is a term used to measure the cost or worth of an online ad appearing at a website. For example, businesses who wish to advertise on a site purchase ad space at a predetermined rate or CPM which is driven by the amount of traffic to the site. An average CPM could run around $5. If we continue the example with that rate, it proves that The Times online paywall should be generating more revenue than when it was free.

41 million estimated page views (/1000 because of the cost per thousand impression) x $5 CPM = $205,000 in monthly revenue. Multiply that by 12 months ($2,460,000) and The Times should be doing two to four times better than they were before the pay wall. Another point to consider is that with a subscription needed to view the site, The Times doesn’t necessarily have to have that many readers to turn a major profit. In their case, a major decline in eyes wouldn’t have bothered them, at least initially.

I briefly touched on the definition of a success or failure earlier, but it’s also important to consider. Is a financial gain the sole variable we should look at when considering if the paywall is succeeding or not? Or, should we factor in the amount of people leaving the site and say the paywall was only slightly successful or a borderline failure? Will writers and journalists soon start to leave knowing their work can only be read by a limited number of people each month?

Ultimately, those questions are for you to decide for yourself. For now at least, it seems as if The Times online paywall has done its job in making money through subscriptions. They’ll only hope they have a plan in mind for when their customer subscription peaks, or when subscribers tire of the fees and leave for the free news elsewhere.

This entry was posted in General, Leagues: EPL. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Has The Times Online Been a Success or Failure?

  1. The Gaffer says:

    It’s incredible to consider that The Times has seen such a massive reduction in pageviews (approximately 37 million), yet it’s still able to make as much, if not more money, with their new model. It’s a good example of how flawed the advertising model is, which many sites – this one included – use.

    The economics need to change.

    Great article. Thanks Jesse.

    Cheers,
    The Gaffer

    • confused says:

      er….yeah whats this got to do with epl?

      • The Gaffer says:

        Everything.

        The Times was one of the best sources for Premier League news, second only to The Guardian. Now, for the vast majority of soccer fans, that news source is gone unless we’re willing to pay for the content. Will this mean that Times writers who have been used to having throngs of people reading their content may jump ship? People who cover the Premier League such as Patrick Barclay or Gabriele Marcotti?

        Cheers,
        The Gaffer

        • Dave C says:

          Whether or not guys like Marcotti or Barclay jump ship is an interesting question. I guess it depends on whether they care primarily about how many people read their articles, or just how much they get paid. If it’s the latter, than obviously they’ll just stay with who ever offers them the best deal.

  2. Titus Pullo says:

    Good read. I’m one of the readers who bailed when they went to a pay service, but as you say they are making money from it, so good for them I guess.

    It’s just frustrating because I did enjoy reading the paper online as it’s not available where I am in the States in print form.

  3. Amber says:

    Ummm…ok article I guess??????

    But can I ask one question?? What the hell does this have to do with EPL??
    I am still on EPL Talk website right??

    I understand the article on “Time closes door on online football coverage” and “end to free football articles”, but this article I do not get, nor do I care.

    • Dave C says:

      Err…it’s pretty obvious. Firstly, the Times was one of the best sources for EPL news, as the Gaffer mentions above. Secondly, as a story about the economic feasibilty of offering free online content compared to pay-to-read, it speaks directly to the possible future of websites in general – i.e. including this one.

  4. Mike says:

    I used to be a daily visitor, now I don’t even bother. ‘Nuff said, no? http://bit.ly/clJND6

  5. Vious says:

    Eh, I go back and forth

    I subscribe to 2 sites for fees as they give me information that I feel is tailored towards certain subjects that I can’t really get elsewhere in the WAY they give it to me.

    The Times is big enough to where if people enjoy their writers and do NOT live near their paper-area….I can see paying for them

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>