Comments on: Times paywall: more analysis of the data

By: jeremy

jeremy — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 14:00:25 +0000

I think you have over-estimate the print value.

I understood that the retailer took typically 50% of the over price; the distributors 25%; and the publisher 25%. The main money of the publisher is the advertising, not the direct sales. On that basis each web reader is directly equivalent to a print reader. But for the advertisers – ad blockers, no skimming over pages while turning to a section of interest – the rates ought to be less than a comparable print reader. Do you have ads on your page? I haven’t noticed!

By: Paul Clieu

Paul Clieu — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:51:56 +0000

15,000 paying customers is about 1% of the previous on-line readership of The Times. So it seems that an on-line reader of The Times was worth less than 2 pence per week, otherwise losing 99% of your readers for a mere £2 paid by 1% would not make sense.

It seems extraordinary that a reader is worth so little. A single Google Adwords impression often costs 20 pence. How is The Times so disorganized that their sales of on-line advertising is worth so little compared searching on Google?

By: Times Loses Almost 90% of Online Readership 3 Weeks After Pay Wall Goes Up – Insights – Bozell – Integrated Marketing Services with Offices in Omaha and Kansas City

Sat, 24 Jul 2010 00:08:52 +0000

[...] impact at the The Times (UK) thetimes.co.uk …and statements like “Sabbagh goes on to calculate that the typical Times print reader is worth ‘at least two and a half times’ the [...]

By: Mr Cambridge

Mr Cambridge — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:50:41 +0000

This is interesting analysis but I feel that without including the costs of production it is nigh on impossible to draw upon any conclusion in relations to profits.

To produce a physical paper, The Times requires a huge operation, many direct and indirect employees, buildings and equipment all with a considerable amount of write off due to production errors. This finished paper then requires a huge logistical operation, warehouses, drivers, retailers etc. News Inc may choose to outsource some or all of these elements but regardless, all of these elements within the supply chain will erode the underlying margin.

In comparison, the online business requires buildings, server farms, engineers and network connections. The difference herein is that Joe Public shares the costs of production with New Inc, Joe supplies the PC, pays for the energy, pays for communications and any required software. On top of this News Inc may outsource AND offshore the digital production thus reducing the entire production costs to just a fraction of the physical print.

Therefore, to summarise, when you view a physical newspaper, News Inc has borne the full cost of production, when you view a news website Joe Public participates in the costs of production. This significant element requires assessment when drawing any profit analysis.

By: ML

ML — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:40:22 +0000

Er, this data has nothing to do with the paywall… misleading.

By: boz

boz — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:50:42 +0000

If newspapers stopping filling their pages with non news drivel (particularly pontifications about Beckams et al’s navels etc), then more copies would be sold.

I have lost count of the times mainstream broadsheets have no real news at all in their first three pages.

They are a real turn off.

Also the vast acreage of drivel is a turn off. Newspapers are utter rubbish today, compared with a few decades ago when journalistic standards were infinitely higher.