function hide_user_promo_bubble_second_stage() { var bubble = $("user_promo_bubble"); bubble.style.display = "none"; } function hide_user_promo_bubble() { var bubble = $("user_promo_bubble"); var myAnim = new YAHOO.util.Anim(bubble, { opacity: { to: 0 } }, 1, YAHOO.util.Easing.easeOut); myAnim.animate(); setTimeout("hide_user_promo_bubble_second_stage()", 1100); } function handle_promo_username(params) { var bubble = $("user_promo_bubble"); var img = $("user_promo_bubble_image"); var anchor = $("user_promo_bubble_link"); if (params.has_photo == "true") { img.src = "http://images.huffingtonpost.com/profiles/" + params.user_id + "-tiny.png"; } else { img.style.display = "none"; Dom.addClass(anchor, "wide"); } anchor.innerHTML = "Shared by " + params.user_name; anchor.href = "http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/" + params.user_name; bubble.style.display = "block"; var myAnim = new YAHOO.util.Anim(bubble, { opacity: { to: 1 } }, 2, YAHOO.util.Easing.easeOut); myAnim.animate(); } if (HuffPoUtil.getUrlVar("user_promo")) { YAHOO.util.Event.onDOMReady(function() { var parts = document.location.hash.split(","), shared_by = "", badge = "", i; if (parts.length < 2) return; for (i = 0; i < parts.length; i++) { if (parts[i].indexOf("sb=") !== -1) { shared_by = parts[i]; } if (parts[i].indexOf("b=") !== -1) { badge = parts[i]; } } if (shared_by == "" || badge == "") return; var bubble = $("user_promo_bubble"); if (!bubble) return; var entry_id = HuffPoUtil.GetEntryID(); if (!entry_id) return; var user_id = parseInt(shared_by.substr(shared_by.indexOf("sb=") + 3)); if (!user_id) return; var badge_type = badge.substr(badge.indexOf("b=") + 2); if (!badge_type) return; script = document.createElement("script"); script.setAttribute("type", "text/javascript"); bubble.appendChild(script); script.setAttribute("src", "/include/share_track.php?a=view&eid=" + entry_id + "&uid=" + user_id + "&b=" + badge_type + "&cb=handle_promo_username"); }); } Murdoch's First Newspaper Paywall Not Off to a Great Start

Some early numbers are leaking on Rupert Murdoch's London Times paywall experiment.

After a month of forced free registrations and two weeks of a full paywall, Dan Sabbagh at Beehivecity.com says these are the numbers:

• 150,000 registrations (PaidContent says this is 12% of the online reader base)
• 15,000 paid subscriptions
• Another 12,500 paid iPad subscriptions

Apparently, the 15,000 paid subscriptions figure is considered "disappointing."

And it is disappointing -- from the perspective of those hoping to save newspapers by erecting paywalls. The first burst of paid subscriptions -- from folks who just can't imagine life without the Times -- are likely to be the biggest burst that the paper gets. But if we're charitable and assume that the 15,000 online subs and 12,500 iPad subs grow to include the 150,000 folks who have registered (unlikely), this still would not produce a big revenue base.

At 2 pounds a week, the average online subscriber would produce 100 pounds of revenue a year. 150,000 of them would produce 15 million pounds of revenue.

15 million pounds of revenue would be nice for a company used to living on, say, $5 million of revenue. But it wouldn't even begin to offset the cost of the Times' huge newsroom.

Meanwhile, what has the new paywall done to online traffic? So far, it has dropped by two-thirds. That, apparently, is actually better than expected. One editor feared it would collapse by 90%.

Now check out the dozens of magazines that are coming back to life -->

 

Follow Henry Blodget on Twitter: www.twitter.com/hblodget

Comments

[dragonladywaltham]

Couldn't happen to a more deserving person. Hope it is only the beginning of poor business decisions.

[Winski]

The numbers say for a Murdoch run media event company, like the Times, that it will go out of business soon. It's un-imaginable that someone would actually pay for this swill everyday...Adios Rupe...

[JDKOC]

This appears to be taken from a fuller account in the guardian two days ago...see http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jul/20/times-paywall-readership
Does Blodget not know how to credit his sources?

[Diplomacy]

Great news!!! Puts the "foxy" racists right out of the dialogue!

[Bat Wrangler]

Perhaps Rupert's greed has overreached?

[farmilyman]

Why pay for propaganda?

[Slash14]

Why pay for a news paper online. Especially when you can get the news for free.

[Eyescribe]

So what have we learned in this story? Fewer people use something when they have to pay for it. In other news, water is wet.

So the HuffPo, a free, money-losing web news aggregator, has a story implying that a newspaper is foolish for actually doing what the HuffPo dares not do: ask people to pay for its product. Then, to bolster its "case," the HuffPo cites traffic figures. Heads up people: The whole point is that when a paper goes behind a paywall, they've abandoned traffic and web ad sales in favor of subscriptions. It's like making fun of HBO for tiny ratings compared to CBS. One is a subscription service, the other is free and ad supported. It's a different business model. It just happens that it's in the HuffPo's interest to see subscriptions fail, because while the HuffPo is nice as a free service, if it had to collect subscrition fees to survive it'd be out of business - or become a porn site - inside a month.

[Puck342]

For pay sites generally only work when people feel they are getting something for their money -- like porn. Newspapers should take a page out of the adult industry's handbook and stop producing shit no one cares about, that takes no risks, and does...well...basically nothing. Who would pay for that? Maybe if the news industry had structured itself around distribution they'd have a massive number of paying subscribers who would be used to highish prices adn more than willing to "go paperless" Hell, it might've even tapped into the hip Green trend. But instead, newspapers whored themselves out to advertisers for decades until the people who didn't know how to drink their morning coffee without a paper in hand all died. Then my generation, who tend to judge things on aesthetics, if not content as well sometimes, looked at these horrifically boring echo-chambers and said, "Why?" even now, there is nothing in a paper that you can't easily find, for free, on the internet or watch, for no extra charge, on TV. I personally think that print journalism should provide a fuller, more intellectual product than TV, but it doesn't. Newspapers made their own noose, walked up the platform, put their hand on the lever, and are now trying to use themselves as hostages to make us pay money. But the problem is, no one cares. See ya, outdated dinosauric industry. You will not be missed.

[Jeff - Ky]

New York Times take notice!!!! Jan 1, NYT will no longer be free...big big mistake.

[Slash14]

who would pay. and what are they going to charge for. If it is for editorials then they can keep it

[dfranz]

It always makes me smile when Rupert takes a ittle hit in the pocket book.

For pay sites don't really work in news. There are too many options.

[feliznavidad]

What, pray tell, does Rupert Murdoch have to do with "news"? Nothing. His game is making money from propaganda. Clever.

[jsgaetano]

I loved hearing Rupert whine that Google News was supposedly costing him money.

[Clevelandinwi]

hUh?

[Matuskaze Kid]

Since this is a story about journalism (albeit the Murdoch form of journalism), I feel compelled to offer HuffPo editors a bit of advice. As a former reporter, I know you sometimes cannot help but resort to jargon: How else can you talk about the Web, for example, without discussing Web sites and servers and so on?

But the newer the jargon the more important it is to define the jargon before using it.

I'm referring to the term "paywall." Call me ignorant, but seeing "paywall" in the headline on the HuffPo "front page" and its repetition in the lead, without explanation, tells me that editors are not doing their job.

Instead of this lead: "Some early numbers are leaking on Rupert Murdoch's London Times paywall experiment.." How about something like this: "Early reports show Rupert Murdoch's London Times is attracting few paid subscribers to its Web site."

[feliznavidad]

Good observation. Lingo is a no-no.

[MarianneEvans11]

NEVER BEEN ON their website and certainly wouldn't PAY for LIES....