Times reveals online subscriber numbers

[Rik]

El Reg reports on the Times 'pay to read' move:

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 100,000 print subscribers who have activated their bundled digital account. Assuming some duplication, the papers reckon this gives them a paying digital audience of about 200,000. Back in January 2009 the sites were pulling in 22.9 million monthly users.

News International's Chief Executive Rebekah Brooks said: "We are very pleased by the response... These figures very clearly show that large numbers of people are willing to pay for quality journalism in digital formats. It is early days but renewal rates are encouraging."

The company said many of the early UK adopters "are relatively affluent and engage with the products frequently. There is a particularly high level of engagement among those have downloaded the app."

The sentence I have emboldened did make my eyebrows twitch upwards!

Still, they're doing better than I expected.

[DorsetBoy]

The sentence I have emboldened did make my eyebrows twitch upwards!

Especially coming from someone that can't even spell her own first name 

[Rik]

[Gary]

I guess you pay for a paper, why not pay online, I can see the reasoning, just because its online why should it be free I guess.

[Lance]

I agree. Its why we are looking at a subscription model for this forum   

[Glenn]

You pay me to read it, you mean? 

[Gary]

I agree. Its why we are looking at a subscription model for this forum   

I never knew you employed models, will we have a Miss and Mr idnetters of the year competition  now then?

[pctech]

I agree. Its why we are looking at a subscription model for this forum   

For goodness sake don't put an accountant in charge!

[Simon]

I thought we weren't meant to say anything yet, Lance. 

[Rik]

There goes the embargo.

[Technical Ben]

I guess you pay for a paper, why not pay online, I can see the reasoning, just because its online why should it be free I guess.

Because someone else can give it for free? I would not pay for a paper if someone was offering (equal quality) free papers in the street. Hmmm sounds familiar. 

[Rik]

Which is why so many long-standing local papers died when the freesheets launched.

[zappaDPJ]

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.

If any of my sites had 105,000 paid-for subscribers I'd be reasonably happy but they must be gutted and you have to assume that these figures are massaged to attract advertisers so I wonder what a more realistic, long term figure would be?

The fact that around half that number is single copy or pay-as-you-go customers must be very worrying especially considering the majority of iPad subscribers are paid up app users or on a free trial or get it anyway as part of their paper subscription. There is said to be around 45,000 of them.

So take away the monthly subscribers and the iPad users, the number left on long term subscription is...

... well who really knows but I've read little to suggest they will break a million in the first year. Conversely the Guardian earns around £40 million a year in online revenues. Ouch!

[Rik]

It's that aspect of the move I could never understand, Zap. To my mind they always stood to lose more in advertising revenue than they would gain from subs.

[zappaDPJ]

They are also about to take the News of the World behind a pay wall. Let's just hope it's steep enough to to stop any of the news escaping

[Rik]

 

I wonder if they'll have two levels of sub for the Sun, with and without p3?

[zappaDPJ]

 

[Gary]

Which is why so many long-standing local papers died when the freesheets launched.

Sadly true, Rik. I am not saying I agree with the sub they charge but I can see the reasoning clearly, If the days of freebee news online and off are the downfall of decent papers, and if reading Sky news becomes your last hope for online news in the future, or even the BBC news service online for that matter, let alone on TV with its theatrical CGI backgrounds, then charging may just help keep creative and intelligent journalism alive. In that case its not a bad thing.

[Rik]

Which means I might subscribe to the Independent, but not the Times.

[Gary]

Which means I might subscribe to the Independent, but not the Times.

I should point out I was not grouping creative journalism with the Times here.  I already paid for a Guardian app for my iphone.

[Rik]

 

[pctech]

Which means I might subscribe to the Independent, but not the Times.

But you have to ask yourself, is The Independent truly independent?

[Rik]

Oh no I don't.