Visits to The Times web sites fall almost 90% since subscription introduced.

Oracle

Quote from article on BBC News web site:

More than 100,000 people have paid to go behind the Times and Sunday Times' new online paywalls but visits to their websites have fallen by about 87%.

Despite the positive spin, this is not good news for the Times. Plus these statistics are based on their figures, the real situation could be far worse.

jdivision

Disagree entirely, 10% paying would generate a lot more income than 100% not paying and relying on advertising.

Oracle

jdivision wrote: »

Disagree entirely, 10% paying would generate a lot more income than 100% not paying and relying on advertising.

Perhaps, although it's less than 4%, not 10%, who are paying, and many are paying very little. From the 2.7m visits to The Times web site, only about 100,000 have paid to read The Times. This figure includes 50,000 "monthly subscribers", many of whom took up a special subscription offer to read The Times for 30 days for £1, then pay £2 per week. Although these readers are counted as subscribers, as far as I can see, there's nothing to stop them cancelling their direct debit before the 30 days are up. That figure also includes those who have paid just £1 to read it for the day.

There's a blog article in the UK's The Independent on the figures: http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2010/11/02/the-times-paywall-the-verdict/

Corsendonk

If the Times is struggling to pull in punters for the subscription service Rupert must be worried for when he moves rest of his stable to subscription.

IRE60

One of the many items you should be wary of: one media group discussing/analysing another. They normally end up as a vindictive and slanted articles – as has been the case in the most of the comments over the numbers of N.I.

“90% Down” – are you having a laugh. It’s 105,000 up subscribers, if you have pockets in your trousers and you value the colour of money!

I grant you, the Murdock machine probably expected more.

But you have to be (again) taking the piss if you equate “loosing 90%” of your traffic and gaining instead £5m p.a. in subscriptions.

expectationlost

IRE60 wrote: »

One of the many items you should be wary of: one media group discussing/analysing another. They normally end up as a vindictive and slanted articles – as has been the case in the most of the comments over the numbers of N.I.

“90% Down” – are you having a laugh. It’s 105,000 up subscribers, if you have pockets in your trousers and you value the colour of money!

I grant you, the Murdock machine probably expected more.

But you have to be (again) taking the piss if you equate “loosing 90%” of your traffic and gaining instead £5m p.a. in subscriptions.

temporary stop gap to still falling sales

speedboatchase

And am I right in thinking The Guardian is losing £100m A DAY? The Times paywall is a necessary evil in many respects and I'm glad it's doing pretty well - I pay for it myself and I think it's well worth the money

IRE60

Guardian Media Group lost £171m in 2009. 468k a day!

expectationlost

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2010/s3058684.htm times paywall leads to paper sales reduction

uvox

Any chance the Irish Daily Mail and it's mainland equivalent will be moved behind a paywall? Risky given the low penetration of credit cards amongst the readership (sharp edges, in their own interests, etc). Do us all a favour...

Blisterman

Corsendonk wrote: »

If the Times is struggling to pull in punters for the subscription service Rupert must be worried for when he moves rest of his stable to subscription.

Yeah, I could see Times readers being a lot more inclined to pay for news than Sun readers.