http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/oct/17/digital-subscriptions-times-sunday-news-uk?commentpage=1
This article focuses on how 'The Times' and 'Sunday Times' have topped 150,000 digital subscription and therefore in total they have 350,000 subscribers to print and online editors. Notably, News UK stated that this includes 200,000 who receive a daily newspaper on subscription. Whereas, the 150,000 figure conveys digital subscribers which have grown 20% since February, when 12,000 people had signed up. Furthermore, according to the company, the digital subscribers for The Times Newspaper now makes up 25% of the paper's total paid-for-sale. Similarly, subscribers to the the paper's print and digital editions also now contribute to half of it's sale.
Moreover, New's UK stated that print subscribers to The Times and Sunday Times has grown by more than 50,000 from 200,000 since July 2010 when it introduced the paywall. Emma Tucker, who is the the Times deputy editor stated, "The paywall was a real challenge for everybody in the paper to get it to fly so this shows a great belief in paid-for content"
People Comments on this article
Agree
1. RationalArgument- "The Guardian probably will need a paywall eventually, but being one of the last ones to change is actually a good strategy as it will allow them to build a big market share of readers before they start charging"
This comment is beneficial in showing how the paywall for the newspapers have made a positive impact on the company as their subscribers have increased rapidly. Effectively, they have more readers which makes the newspaper more successful.
2. sagesteve
Recommend
- "I am baffled by the newspaper online payment model. It would be a waste of money for me to have a subscription as I don't have time to read a paper every day. But on a spare day, I would pay to download a single edition to my ipad. As far as I'm aware I can't do this"
I agree with this comment because if individuals subscribe to the newspapers and do not read it everyday therefore it would be a waste of their money. However, the audience could read the newspaper online addition on a regular basis for free as they would still be receiving instant updates.
3. ireland34
- I subscribe to the 'I', the times and the telegraph through the kindle fire, I like to read all sides of a news story
I agree with this comment because people who subscribe the newspaper will get access to new issues and it gives them the choice of reading any sections of the newspaper.
- "Why should journalism, which costs money to do properly, be free?" Why should any business believe that, just because it is expensive to produce its product, anyone will be wiling to pay (much) for it?"Does the Guardian earn anything from me?" Yes, but not very much. Page impressions to pay (just like old-style display advertising) just not nearly so well.
I agree with this comment because news shouldn't be free as journalists will be losing money as well and it is their job to write news articles. Also, just because it is expensive to produce the print newspaper and online does not mean that it should start costing.
5. focsle185Recommend
"Paying for any online journalism is 'borg' like. If I wanted to limit myself to one type of view possibly a good idea. As it is the internet provides a fertile platform for discovering news from many sources. I prefer to use my own filter than that proscribed and provided to me by the self appointed types at the times and ST"
This comment is beneficial as it conveys that consumers do not need to be passive and just read and take in one journalist perspective on a new article. This is because, through the internet people have access to different news sources and therefore the audience have a variety of perspectives to read.
"Paying for any online journalism is 'borg' like. If I wanted to limit myself to one type of view possibly a good idea. As it is the internet provides a fertile platform for discovering news from many sources. I prefer to use my own filter than that proscribed and provided to me by the self appointed types at the times and ST"
This comment is beneficial as it conveys that consumers do not need to be passive and just read and take in one journalist perspective on a new article. This is because, through the internet people have access to different news sources and therefore the audience have a variety of perspectives to read.
Disagree
1. lawsonrob
- It's a disaster no matter which way they spin it. I doubt it even covers what they've lost in online advertising income, never mind the damage to brand profile and awareness.
I disagree with this comment because both newspapers do include articles which appeal to the audience and therefore it is not a disaster.
- No we won't. Paywalls are already coming down. It was a bad idea that they tried for the second time and it's failing again. Personally, I like the Telegraph paywall. View the site in a incognito window and it works perfectly.
Personally, from reading this article I think the paywall will not be coming down from the digital editions of the newspaper as it has made a lot of revenue for the company.
- Because The Times is a very good newspaper, free of an overtly biased political agenda and employing Columnists and leader writers from across the political spectrum. In my opinion it is the best newspaper in Britain, by a mile. All in all easily worth £4 a week" (The Sunday Times website is a bit of a mess, but it too is a good read.)
I disagree with the comment as The Times is not the "best newspaper in Britain" as there are other newspaper which are similarly good and even better. For example, broadsheet newspaper such as The Guardian is successful amongst a majority of individuals because if covers topics which people especially middle class individuals are interested in. Notably, the fact that due to the pay wall subscribers would have to pay for The Times and Sunday Newspaper may likely decrease the number of consumers as some people only read the digital news because it is free.
4. FatFrank
- The paywall is too restrictive. The Times loses the marketing benefit of giving away a few articles a month (like the FT) and showing a bit of ankle. Are they also hidden from Google, as per Rupert's instructions? Let people see a bit for free and they might be more likely to pay. The digital Times is largely invisible to non-subscribers.
I disagree with this comment because the paywall is not restrictive as it gives consumers the choice whether they want to subscribe or not. Even if The Times give away few articles a month they are still earning revenue due to the amount of people who subscribe.
5. cheetah43
- 150,000 subscribers to online papers! Laughable. And they lured the first 120,000 at £2/week. Since then they doubled the subscription rate to £4/week. All in all, they are claiming annual revenue from the online papers of £30m. So what is there to boast about when their journalists are addressing only 150,000 people on the WWW enjoyed my hundreds of millions?
I disagree with this point because by the newspaper companies putting up a paywall it has improved their revenue, therefore it is possible that they got 150,000 subscribers online.
No comments:
Post a Comment