*Sigh* No! The Times

Today Brand Republic reported that the Times website has lost 1.2m unique users since May. 

That sounds like a lot. It sounds like more when you realise that it's 43% of their audience in a 2 month reported period. A period that coincides with the introduction of their paid for access.

I'm not privy to any information about how much revenue they've generated in terms of subscriptions - but I do know that as their page impressions have dropped from 29m to 9m over the same period then their ad revenues will have fallen through the floor. If we assume a rough £12 cost per thousand for any ad on their network and an average of 2 such on any page that's half a million straight off.  Each month. Not to mention the reader offers/partnerships/white labelling that newspapers use to flesh out their revenue.

I don't imagine that they are going to do a turnaround especially quickly - but it will be interesting to see what sort of limbo dancer Mr Murdoch is. Just how low can he go?

I thought this was a ballsy move when they first announced it - but one that I couldn't see working. At the same time the old free content isn't really working either - and I completely understand why the old media tycoons are so upset with the new media search behemoths that earn so much as the carriers to their content.

Going it alone was never the answer. the Times isn't my paper of choice. I'm much to much the liberal Guardian reader for that. I did however used to browse quite a lot of their content when it was free. Now it isn't I go elsewhere. Or don't. I find I'm satisfied with one less sports section distraction. 

It's interesting to see that there hasn't been an enormous and correlating increase in any other UK newspaper sites. It may just be that people who did check in with the Times every now and again just don't any more.

If paid for is going to work it has to be as a partnership across different media owners. It has to be as a license that allows to access to any UK newspaper. They can then look to divvy it up depending on where I/you/the UK has actually been and what content they've created. 

There is just too much content out there for one group to make a stand. People are used to free and know where to go for it. A general license will ensure that the news is paid for it's work. If some people then go to amateur free channels or wait to watch the news at home/hear it on the radio then it just means there's too much news and a new level will be found. Some may fall by the wayside but all won't.

This will also set a model for the licensing of content on the internet. I think the same will happen through music and film when cloud access to content is fast enough to watch anything/hear anything whenever/wherever you have a screen (which will be bloody everywhere)

I really do think that everything for free online will die a death sometime in the next few years. Some established media owners will die along with it - but a sustainable license for content regardless of origin will make sure that new levels are found. 

Comments

[edward]

Interesting article. I also simply stopped thinking about the times online, went elsewhere, no probs. Your concept of a partnership across different media owners sounds like its against the interest of consumers and therefore against competition laws - near to a monopoly. I'm not a lawyer...Would be interesting if major media owners all went to monetising, wonder how many folk would follow a subscription - I for one simply wouldn't bother, as you say, there's masses of free and good out there.