About Hitwise
Hitwise is the leader in online competitive intelligence. Contact Hitwise to maximize your online marketing programs.
Hitwise Intelligence - Heather Dougherty - North America
Analyst Weblog
« Interest in Glenn Beck Increases with Departure | Optimizing for The Royal Wedding »
Impact of paywall on NYTimes.com
April 11, 2011
After months of speculation, the paywall for The New York Times went live at 2pm on Monday, March 28th, which limits online readers (non-print subscribers) to 20 articles each month. For smartphone and tablet applications, only the top news section will remain free and access to other sections will need a subscription.
To understand the initial impact, we compared the total visits to NYTimes.com for a 12 day period before the launch of the pay wall to the 12 days following the launch. For the majority of the days, there was a decrease in the overall visits between 5% and 15%. The one exception was Saturday, April 9th, 2011 where there was a 7% increase, likely due to visitors seeking news around the potential government shutdown and ongoing budget discussions.
The effect of the pay wall has been somewhat stronger upon the total page views for the NYTimes.com, with the same comparison of a 12 day period before the launch of the pay wall to the 12 days following the launch. For all 12 days, there was a decline in total page views which ranged between 11% and 30%.
One caveat to the 20 article limit is to access NYTimes.com through search engines like Google and social networking websites like Facebook and Twitter. While using these sources could be a clever workaround for a reader hoping not to pay, to date there has not been a significant difference in the share of upstream traffic from both search and social networks to NYTimes.com before and after the launch of the paywall.
Tweet
Posted by Heather Dougherty at 05:19 PM
| 
(21)
| 
(2)
In Categories Digital Subscriptions | Facebook | Google | News and Media | Search Engines | Social Media | Social Networking | Twitter
TrackBack
Links to weblogs that reference this entry:
- NYT Paywall Impact (Wir sprechen Online.)
Hitwise: The NYT paywall impact is strong. Visits -5% to -15%, page views -11% to -30%; http://eicker.at/NYTPaywallImpact... [Read More] - Could Decreased Visits be a Good Result for NYTimes.com? (Kelly's Digital Days)
what I wonder next is how to decide whether your content is a candidate for a paywall.... [Read More]
Comments
Some folks (me included) were given free access to nytimes.com when the paywall started. On the day it went into effect, I was greeted with a page stating that their sponsor (Cadillac? I forget exactly) wished to offer me a free account for the rest of the year since I was a frequent visitor.
Posted by Eric | April 11, 2011 11:12 PM
The strength of the NYT paywall is that it is a separating strategy--it is really easy for tech-savvy kids to get around it (just turn javascript off!) and annoying for real people with more important things to do (it is a happy coincidence that people that have better things to do than find workarounds can also generally pay for subscriptions). For people who have sufficient incentive to find workarounds, search engines and social network software is needlessly complicated. That the paywall separates these two demographics so well is genius.
Posted by WB | April 12, 2011 12:11 AM
This analysis doesn't reveal the full picture as during the first 12 days after the paywall went up most people were able to use their 20 free views. The next 12 days will be more interesting.
Posted by relentlessfocus | April 12, 2011 06:30 AM
I will be interested in seeing the numbers for the share of upstream traffic from both search and social networks a month or two out from the launch date.
I think the current study observed no change because people have't generally run into the 20 article limitation yet, so there is no need to use other sources to get in. My own 20 article limit just run out today - April 12.
Posted by Victor Acquah | April 12, 2011 08:29 AM
please remember that the NYT had an advertiser, I think Lincoln, that gave access free to readers till the end of 2011. I took advantage of that and still have access. Look for further drop when that expires
Posted by ilene miner | April 12, 2011 10:35 AM
Did you consider comparing traffic at nytimes.com against traffic at other news Web sites? I ask because it's my impression that news was considerably more urgent in the two weeks before the paywall went up than in the two weeks after and I wonder if that means traffic at other news sites declined slightly. As you note, news like the budget story pushes traffic and so it would be interesting to have a basis for comparison beyond just the nytimes.com traffic.
Posted by ajt | April 12, 2011 12:57 PM
Won't the effects of the paywall drastically increase as the month rolls on, i.e., as we get further into the calendar month, and more regular readers reach the 20-article limit? Would love to hear someone in the know address this...
Posted by Keith Kreisher | April 12, 2011 01:01 PM
yep, same here with the Lincoln-sponsored freebie for the rest of the year. I grabbed it, as did my neighbor who also got the offer. I wonder what'll happen first of the year though...
Posted by jacqueline Tellalian | April 12, 2011 02:26 PM
While it's not surprising that traffic would go down when the NYT's metered model was put in place, this report would have more context if it compared traffic at "control group" sites, like the Washington Post or the Huffington Post, during the same period. After all, traffic ebbs and flows according to the news and it would add to our understanding if we knew whether other sites maintained steady traffic over this time.
Posted by Tom Jolly | April 12, 2011 03:37 PM
They gave out 280k free subscriptions to the people that viewed NYT the most. Wonder how the graphs would look without those people(myself included)
Posted by Josh | April 12, 2011 04:51 PM
If I'm interpreting the FAQ correctly, access through Google etc. does "count", but one can continue to access through Google after the wall has been reached. So, some readers may be running out their direct access before switching to Google.
From my experience, the NYT would do better to have some articles marked as "free" ... to maintain traffic to the site. I'm not finding as difficult a habit to break as I expected.
Posted by AnnFS | April 12, 2011 05:19 PM
I was an avid online reader of the NYTimes, but since the paywall, I have been breaking myself of the habit. The original thought was to save my 20 times to last the month, but I can get my news elsewhere. I miss their perspective though, and their opinion pieces.
Posted by Kathleen | April 12, 2011 06:21 PM
Don't know if this is true for others, but regarding my own habits I've noticed that now when I see link to a NY Times story I'll ask myself "hmmm, is this really worth using up one of my 20 articles?" and then I'll often pass.
Posted by Mr Peanut | April 12, 2011 06:56 PM
I have to agree with AnnFS. After stopping, I didn't find the NYT content unique enough for me to buy a subscription or bother looking for sneaky ways to access. I just pick up news and opinions elsewhere now. Maybe I wouldn't mind paying for NYT, but even subscribing is too much of a hassle. I'm a lazy news junkie.
Posted by Rebekah | April 12, 2011 10:22 PM
Oh for heaven's sake. Just delete browsing data - the browser should be set to do this anyway, no cache and set cookies and history to delete automatically on exit. The rudiments of safe surfing.
I have had no problem reading it as much as ever, which is a lot and I have not disabled java script nor do I get to an article via a link.
What concerns me most is the decision of the NYT's to address the rich and leave everyone else behind.
Posted by Pat | April 13, 2011 03:41 AM
The 12 days before the launch were atypical. It would have been better to compare to the same time last year or at least to an average week. Hard to conclude anything.
Posted by SGirard | April 13, 2011 09:22 AM
I'm bummed that I didn't see that offer from Lincoln!
I visit the site daily and now I'm so careful about what articles I choose to read. It's the 13th and I only have 5 articles left. I used to visit each section and read at least 1 article from each section. Not to mention the real estate section, LOVE the pictures.
I don't like this paywall thing at all! I find myself visiting other news sites to try and fill my news needs.
Posted by daily reader | April 13, 2011 03:01 PM
I was confused when I clicked links from facebook to articles and it counted in my 20 articles. I just get my news from other sources now since I have one free article left. I imagine the second half of the month will be much harder on the website.
Posted by P | April 14, 2011 12:52 AM
This analysis doesn't reveal the full picture as during the first 12 days after the paywall went up most people were able to use their 20 free views. The next 12 days will be more interesting.
Posted by Kostenlos | April 15, 2011 09:09 AM
Archives (view all posts)
Categories
This is very interesting. Quick question: how does this compare to overall internet traffic, and in particular on major news sites that have been free, such as the BBC, Washington Post, Guardian etc? I suspect that readership of news on the internet has grown since last year. Hopefully the Times can offset this decline in hits with an increase in online subscription revenue.
Posted by Patrick | April 11, 2011 09:09 PM