The Times and The Sunday Times have given a limited peek behind their respective paywalls. News International said its websites have 105,000 paid-for subscribers, around half of whom are monthly subscribers. This figure includes subscribers to the site as well as those accessing it through iPad or Kindle apps. There are also …
A pound a day?
JFC, more money than sense, some people and it's not like you can't get quality journalism anywhere else for free. I bet it's saved them heaps in bandwidth costs though.
Encouraging for the Dirty Digger
I don't read any of his papers, but if the Graun did similar I'd probably sign up for £2 a week.
I'd like some of this "quality" you speak of
The one reason I'd never pay for news is because I don't know of any decent news sources. They're ALL crap. (Except for The Register of course don't ban me)
They do, but it actually costs tow pondus a weke.
good job greedy grasping billionare
Wonder how many of these 100 thou are trials and freebies?
@greedy grasping billionare
Did you honestly expect Murdoch to give it away for free? TBH other newspapers should get their inky fingers out and follow suit or he and the bloggers will be the only game in town. Then we'll really be screwed.
Are the sites profitable? On those sorts of numbers I'd guess the answer is a serious no.
No, we wouldn't be screwed.
At least, I won't. I'll simply keep using the BBC news service, seeing as I've paid for it through the licence fee.
Other reports are going in to a bit more detail, and the 100K subscribers is mainly composed of people paying £1 and £2 every so often (or just the once and never again). 100k is pretty good, but the number is being misleadingly inflated like a jumbo packet of crisp.
It's good that they are making [some] money, and they are likely making more money now than before when it was just adds alone, but would still like a graph or two.
Good for you. I read the BBC's news site but find it a little light on analysis, heavy on parrotting whatever press release they've just been handed. Auntie's been poor since losing the pissing contest with Blair over reporting the cockamamie reasons for invading Iraq.
For important stuff I want to read a second view. With a backbone.
No Kindle access
Just thought I'd point out that The Times isn't yet available on the Kindle. The papers that are available are the Telegraph, Mail, Independent, FT and Evening Standard, so News International seem to have skipped the Kindle as a delivery mechanism completely.
All the news stories on the web mentioned the Kindle - not sure who issued the PR for this but left arm/right arm?
As long as the good 'ol BBC is still free you would be an idiot to pay for news.
£145.50 per year is an interesting definition of the word 'free'.
You already had to pay that fee to have a TV in your house and which you have no choice about.
But it is accessible to all in the UK (even if you have not paid the license because they can't tell on the intertubes).
BBC...NEWS...What universe is that in?
The BBC is the last place I look for news, it makes Sky News look brilliant.
BBC News almost never report a story unless it has pictures to retards to ogle at.
BBC News has to lowest quality of journalism there is, most of the stories are copies of what Sky started reporting hours before, or are little more than free advertising for new products (despite the rules on no advertising on the BBC). They do love to repeat press releases word for word as “news”, plus the vital importance of reporting the happenings on EastEnders, X-Factor and “Z-List-Celebrities-wanting-Exposure”shows.
It's not just the regular news programming, there used to an excellent, intelligent and useful program called “Working Lunch” that ran for ~14 years.
Then the presenters were all replaced or sidelined by a younger dim bimbo and that that idiot Declan, whose business knowledge seems to peak at whether the FTSE100 has gone up or down today. Having just checked for the spelling of the idiot's name online; I find that the program was canned last July (~18 months after changes), supposedly due to new media replacing it. More like; all the regular viewers turned off after it became a piss poor shadow of the early years.
Probably best not comment on “Panorama” these days.
If you actually want to know what is happening in the world and you have Sky, I would recommend trying “EuroNews”, “France 24” and “NHK World”. I find it amazing how often these news channels will cover issues that effect UK residents (eg: national and international politics) and other major events around the world that are never reported by the Beeb and Sky.
@ AC who likes Sky
A pro-Sky troll. Wow. That must be a rare species.
It is true that the BBC's quality has dropped in recent years, and nothing will be like BBC2 in the '80s where we had such people as Bamber Gascogne and Patrick Moore in normal-hours TV, where you could watch an entire programme with few diagrams and no crappy CGI animations.
However... to say that the BBC copies old Sky stuff? How about the BBC at least makes some vague attempt to have a story, as opposed to Sky News sexing up nothing and inventing what doesn't exist. You know, like the time they had breaking news about tanks in London which, well, was a tank of some sort and it was in London, but that's about as far as the story was. When I see "BREAKING NEWS" on Sky, if I should happen to be on that channel (I rarely am), then I catch the headline for the gist of the story, and then change to a different channel... To be honest, the only thing I can say positive for Sky News is that way-cute Irish girl that does the weather.
HOWEVER, not a 100% troll - you're COMPLETELY right about the bizarre censorship of the UK news. You may not realise this if you only ever listen to BBC/ITV/Sky, but there is quite a lot of stuff that never gets a mention. I watch "France24" and "NHK World" a lot [actually, my default startup for the satellite receiver is NHK World]. I would add "Al Jazeera" to the list. I rarely watch it, like I rarely watch CNN, but if some epic international shit-storm happens, I watch both and from them (pro-Arab vs pro-US) I figure I can distill a sort-of truth as to what actually might have been going on.
But, frankly, a lot of times I avoid the news altogether. It's a load of people being killed for reasons barely understood, breathlessly reported with as much gore as would be tolerated by the various overseeing bodies [talking of bodies, was it necessary to have lingering shots of people floating face down after Katrina? that's just pandering to the shock-value mentality]. If I want to feel depressed, that's what my Sarah McLachlan CD is for...
Oh really ......
Reading your post, i'm not really sure that you are the BBC's target audience. Have you tried any 'accessible' content? Maybe something on CBeebies? When criticising the BBC for the quality of their content, it might be more appropriate to do so in coherent English.
I was watching Sky News in Oman recently and have never seen such agenda driven interviewing on any channel on the day of the spending cuts. The reporters weren't actually listening to anything said to them. Total garbage.
I am sure that the Times' advertisers are 'very pleased by the response' as well.
Potential customers seeing our advertising went down overnight from 22.9 million monthly to about 200,000 monthly. Sales may drop a little; like off a cliff top.
but they're quality
Those 200,000 punters have been pre-selected as idiots who will pay good money for rubbish, so they are most advertisers target demographic.
Painful, but necessary
I like 'free', but it isn't sustainable (or fair). Those who prepare news (and other media) deserve to be paid just like everyone else. The Times may have seen a big drop in numbers visiting the site, but it has a real business model now. It's readers appreciate and enjoy the content sufficiently to pay for it - if I was a journalist, I think I would find that far more satisfying.
I don't mind the idea for paying for news
But I do have a couple of unrelated issues:
1. I'd rather pay for a quality news aggregation service (I like my news from more than one source).
2. News International? Isn't their name tainted by a single word? Fox?
Assuming some duplication? Does that mean we're assuming 5,000 Times readers are dumb enough to pay twice for the same thing? Er, actually that seems fair enough.
Still more profitable than web advertising
Even with a 99% reduction in "footfall" and assuming the lowest tariff, the site still pulls £100-200K a week. That sounds like a much better return than any website would get from taking advertising. The key is how will they fare in the long term?
Are those users loyal or will the numbers decline significantly over time - or once their introductory offers expire. Come back in a year for the next exciting installment!
Not so sure
Not sure you're right actually, admittedly taking a lot of guesses about average CPMs, unsolds and the number of page impressions those 22.9M visitors actually saw, even using low CPM figs and high unsolds (50% in my quick back of a fag packet calc), they could have been doing more than 100K a week in advertising. Now they will retain some ads, and probably at a much higher CPM (because they can target better with registered users), but I really doubt subs has made them better off (in fact I'm certain of it because if it had they'd be crowing about it), plus they're spending a shitload on marketing to get those subscribers, and most of them are at a discount; how many are going to pay the full £8 a week?
There are too many failures of this model and very, very few successes (literally countable on the fingers of one hand) to make me believe NewsCorp have cracked it.
Hahahahahah. That really is not many at all. Perhaps they are not worth the price they are charging.
What price will they put on Sun readership? 20p a week? Is it worth even that?
I look forward to them backing down and saying that it was a successful experiment, but they are moving back to the freetard model as unfortunately their advertisers are leaving in droves.
Actually I really look forward to the entire mega-corporation carrying on with this cunning plan and eventually folding, never to be seen again.
@ AC - 2nd November 2010 12:28 GMT
"What price will they put on Sun readership? 20p a week? Is it worth even that?"
Nope, They'd have to pay me much more than that to read it!
going to have to stop buying readers sometime
Given the substantial amount of advertising I'm seeing, all of it pushing the £1/month deal it's pretty hard to take 105k users as good ROI. When the advertising push stops I fully expect all their paid users to melt away and just leave the paper subscribers with their free accounts.
Far as I can see Murdoch's still on course for total failure, the point was to make money, not spend it buying short term market share.
22.9 million down to 105,000?
That must hit their advertising revenue.
The News Of The World is already behind a paywall. With a free trial version at present.
Assuming some loss for trials etc, they could be making around £300,000 a week from those from subscribers... i wonder how much they got in ad revenue from those 22.9 Million previously - probably very little.
An nothing of value was lost....
"Murdoch moved The News of the World behind a paywall just over two weeks ago."
This is terrible. How am I supposed to know which footballers are cheating on which celebs now?
what the advertisers are now thinking.
a tit is required
How retaining 1% of their customer base can be considered a success is way beyond me.
making a little profit from a little loyal crowd as got to be better than having a large bunch of non payers using up bandwidth and ignoring advertising ?
Define customer if you wil. Not to be confused with freeloader. Not saying I agree, just pointing out that there is a difference......
I'd rather have my liver removed with a rusty spoon ...
... than pay to read a Murdoch "news"-paper, online or on paper.
Or people who just paid £1 once to see what it was like...
What Kindle App
I checked Amazon today and there's still no Kindle sub for The Times.
Do they mean using the Kindle's web browser ?
The Times is read by the people who run the country.
The Telegraph is read by people who think they are running the country.
The Independent is read by people who think they should be running the country.
The Guardian is read by people who think another country should be running the country.
The Mail is read by people who think another country IS running the country.
Great post but...
Great post but what I want to know is, which people are reading The Register?
Is it the people who think Paris is running the country?
The Sun is read by people who don't mind who runs the country as long as she's got large tits.
such as your good self I'll wager..
Yeah but I only read the Register for the stories bout Paris and cross-dressers in moats with dogs. Surely some of the readers come for the tech news, we need a readership demographics survey or something! I need to know what sort of people vote up and down my silly comments - worryingly, it seems like 80% of my comments are voted up!
"another country is running the country"
That would be the US. I claim my £5
The Times ...
... they are a chang(e)in'!
That is some serious decline
So out of that figure of 200k users 100k are printed page subscribers who ask for digital access as well. So that leaves only about 100k purely digital paying users?!
That doesn't sound like much income to support a large newspaper work force.
Plus its gone from 22.9 million monthly users to 200k users?! ... So over 99% of users say no more thanks Mr Murdoch?! ... that is some serious decline. Oh what a shame Mr Murdoch. ;)
I wonder how low that figure can go before they are unviable? ... or more to the point, how low before they need to be supported by the rest of the Murdoch somewhat crumbing empire. Eventual failure couldn't happen to a more deserving person than Rupert Murdoch. But he and his family would still walk away with a lot of money and he has lived the high life for so long by being a Machiavellian bastard to people. So not much justice but at least we get to see the end of this two faced bastard.
@"These figures very clearly show that large numbers of people are willing to pay for quality journalism in digital formats."
Far more like... These figures very clearly show that far greater numbers of people are not willing to pay for Rupert Murdoch propaganda journalism in digital formats.
Bye Murdoch, you are old news.
And of those 100K digital users . . .
"So out of that figure of 200k users 100k are printed page subscribers who ask for digital access as well. So that leaves only about 100k purely digital paying users?!"
Of whom approximately half don't have a continuing subscription. And I'm willing to bet that an awfully large number of those 50,000 "users" either a) read the paper once and thought "eh, well, OK, but not worth a couple of quid a week when I can get the Grauniad, Torygraph and NYTimes for free" or b) like me, coughed up the money for one particular article that they forgot to save when everything was still free.
Pay per view
Of course you realise, the next thing, if there is any substantial take up, will be extra charges for sports sections and special features.
Remember when you paid for Sky, then a bit later you paid extra for Sky Sports, then a bit later you paid even more for Premium events, but you DID pay.
Title says it all...
- Vid Hubble 'scope scans 200000 ton CHUNKY CRUMBLE ENIGMA
- Google offers up its own Googlers in cloud channel chumship trawl
- Bugger the jetpack, where's my 21st-century Psion?
- Interview Global Warming IS REAL, argues sceptic mathematician - it just isn't THERMAGEDDON
- Apple to grieving sons: NO, you cannot have access to your dead mum's iPad