About Hitwise
Hitwise is the leader in online competitive intelligence. Contact Hitwise to maximize your online marketing programs.
Hitwise Intelligence - Robin Goad - UK
Analyst Weblog
« Budget 2010: the online response | Harry Potter fever: Wizarding World theme park, Deathly Hallows, Lego game »
Times paywall: initial data and analysis
June 24, 2010
Following months of speculation, News International has finally erected a paywall around the Times newspaper website. After a couple of weeks running two sites, (www.timesonline.co.uk and www.thetimes.co.uk) in parallel, visitors to the former site are now automatically redirected to the latter. Since last Tuesday, users have had to register to read content on the Times website (as well the separate Sunday Times site). However, they don’t yet have to pay: during the trial period, which is expected to last until the end of the month, simply having registered is enough to access the content behind the paywall.
So, what has the impact been on traffic to the Times website? The chart below illustrates the market share of UK Internet visits within our News and Media – Print category. We have aggregated traffic to both old and new Times sites in order to cut out any double counting and provide a consistent comparison and, as you can see, the title’s market share has dropped from 4.37% during the week ending May 22nd to 2.67% last week (w/e June 19th).
The Times was only forcing people to register for part of last week, so the daily traffic chart below shows an even steeper drop off: yesterday the title’s market share was down to 1.81%, under half of its average during May. Its average session time has also fallen from an average of five and half to three minutes. That figure is actually higher than many people would have expected, given that a lots of visitors will be spending very little time there if they are choosing not to register.
The Times has actually setup a separate site for user registrations, MyTimes+. Last week this was the top site visited after the Times, picking up 17.6% of downstream traffic; implying that a significant amount of users are choosing to register in order to access content. The next most visited website after the main Times site was the Telegraph, which picked up 3.8% of downstream traffic last week. The chart below illustrates the amount of downstream traffic that the Times sends to its main competitors (plus the Sun and Sky News), and how this has changed over the last couple of months.
The amount of traffic that the Times has sent to these sites has dipped over the last couple of weeks. At first glance this seems counter intuitive: surely people ‘bouncing’ from the Times site after being put off by the paywall must be going to competitors? In fact, the reason for the dip is the amount of traffic that the Times is now sending to the MyTimes+ registration page. Therefore, a more accurate picture of which sites are picking up Times readers not prepared to register the can be found by looking at the downstream data from MyTimes+.
As you can see from the table above, around a third of MyTimes+ visitors go on to another Times property. The biggest beneficiaries of traffic from a competitor perspective are the Telegraph, Guardian, Independent, Daily Mail and BBC News. Looking at it from the opposite direction the chart below, we can see that the Independent is most reliant on traffic from MyTimes+, which accounted for 0.6% of its visits last week. The Telecgraph was close behind and the Guardian in third place, implying that the Times’ traditional broadsheet competitors are best placed to pick up readers not willing to register or pay to see its content.
So, its still early days, but the conclusion so far seems to be this: since it forced users to register in order to view its content, the Times has lost market share. However, this decline has clearly not been catastrophic and none of the paper’s rivals has particularly benefitted. Yet. The real test will come when people actually have to pay rather than simply register to view the Times’ content. When that happens we will of course provide some more analysis, so keep an eye on the blog and our Twitter feed for updates.
Tweet
Posted by Robin Goad at 12:23 PM
| 
(11)
| 
(2)
In Categories BBC | News and Media
TrackBack
Links to weblogs that reference this entry:
- The Times Paywall – First Glance (sam's mojo)
The latest News Corporation experiment of broadening its news paywall to TheTimes.co.uk went live last week. Many in our industry are wondering, can the mass news brands replicate the micropayment success of specialist business publishers like FT.com... [Read More] - What Can Our Times Learn From the Launch of the London Times’ Pay Wall? (Daily Intel)
Not everything went smoothly this week when the British paper erected an impermeable pay wall. [Read More]
Comments
It's natural that there will be a drop off in audience -- those who pay are a company's customers, those who do not are not. It's no different than with any content play on any platform (TV, print media, etc.)
It's unrealistic to assume people won't pay for content on the internet given that they do and have for more than ten years, and it's unrealistic to expect audiences who pay for things to be as big as those who consume free content. TV is a great example of this.
The added benefit/gain of subscription/ad hybrid model like the Times is doing (which has been the predominant print media model for decades in general) is that they're not reliant on ads only. What they lose in prospective audience, they gain in potential revenue.
Ad only models have never been predominant on platforms of any kind (TV, print, etc.) because they're the weakest way to monetize, next to making nothing at all.
Posted by patricia | June 24, 2010 07:49 PM
"When that happens we will of course provide some more analysis".
I don't know about that. I assume these stats come from a hitbox script embedded on each page. Surely the Times will be keen to protect this data and will prevent 3rd party analysts from accessing it? I'd be really interested to know, after all its campaigning for openness in the legal system and government - whether the times will consider that its reader have a right to know about the scale of its success or failure.
Posted by Harry | June 25, 2010 07:45 AM
As much as these news organizations would like to make money online, this is not the way to do it. There are simply too many sources for a web user to get the information they want to have to pay for it. Only the most devoted readers will pay and I'm guessing there aren't enough to keep the doors open and the phone ringing.
A quick search engine query will lead you to free information 99% of the time.
Recognize the future guys... this is not a sustainable business model for news.
Posted by Cory H | June 25, 2010 02:48 PM
It is none of anyone's business who I am. There are far too many people ready to abuse identity information. I have registered for a handful of sites that are of high value to me (most of which I have paid for print subscriptions as well), but I will not register for access to sites I visit casually, even for free. Nor will I waste my time registering just so I can post an opinion. And pop-up ads? I do not need your content that badly. Try viewing your mission as providing information, rather than merely being a vehicle for advertising.
Posted by Steve D | June 26, 2010 11:16 PM
The traffic to the Times is bound to be hit at least the first few months as people generally abhor filling out forms and registering.
Posted by Jacob Christopher | June 28, 2010 01:36 PM
Here the term "market share" has been defined by the amount of users. How clever is that?
Users don't automatically mean revenues. These numbers don't yet tell about the affect even on advertising income. There might be some hit of course.
If Times manages to get at least some part of its readers to pay a subscription free, it means more money than giving away everything for free.
The challenge is, of course, how to make buying content so easy, you can do it spontaneously, like from Apple App Store.
If Time succeeds with this, it most likely encourages others to follow. Soon more and more quality content will be behind some kind of an paywall.
Even public media companies (such as BBC in UK) want your money in some form, even though they're often referred as "free services".
Posted by Tero Lehto | July 1, 2010 12:09 PM
The Times certainly will see a drop in traffic but that's like losing all those people who read your publication in WH Smith and then put it down and don't buy it - you can afford to lose those people as they cost money (mangled magazine in the newsagent, hosting/bandwidth online) but bring in no income. OK so a small number might be turned into spenders but I bet the numbers are time. I blogged on this some time ago: http://philsworkbench.blogspot.com/2010/04/is-web-future.html
I suspect Rupe has worked this out and is hoping that while he retains a profitable and cheap to service bunch of online readers, the "tyre kickers" will head off to his competitiors pushing their costs up and yet handing over no income. Look at the spieks in traffic for sites that are already buring money and imagine the meetings the techie staff are having with accounts right now...
As far as engaging with web content being different - the cost of the writer or journalist is the same for both whether you read it properly or not. People have to get paid or they can't afford to spend the sort of time it takes to properly research and write a piece. If you just want quick reading there are any number of web forums where there is an infinite amount of poorly thought out opinion. Including mine probably :-)
Posted by Phil Parker | July 2, 2010 12:46 PM
I will struggle to pay for generalised news sites, however for specific worthwhile content, with balanced view, which allow me the punter to make an informed decision will have some merit.
Thank goodness traditional media moguls will never have the same unfettered power, influence and profits ever again!
Posted by chris | July 7, 2010 02:15 PM
your article is very nice..
thanks for sharing.. it is interesting
Posted by simon | July 13, 2010 04:10 AM
People will pay for quality news, the ft.com and many others have done this online for years. However, I'm unsure if such a mainstream publication will attract enough revenue to offset the loss of ad revenue.
I'd suggest that if they've been unable to realise ad revenues from their visitor numbers they should have put more effort on SEO (I never stumbled-upon times.co.uk) and optimising the positioning and rendering of their advertising.
Posted by go optimisation | September 27, 2010 10:54 PM
Let's hope Mr Murdoch is keeping a close eye on this data! Interesting stuff.
Posted by Rob Lewis | June 24, 2010 01:55 PM