New poll shows 76% of Times Online readers will not pay
A new poll for paidContent: UK found that 76% of Times Online readers are “not at all likely” to pay for access to the new Times and Sunday Times websites.
However, the poll, carried out by Harris Interactive, also found that 13% of Times Online users rated themselves as “somewhat likely” to sign up, while 4% were “fairly likely” and 2% “very likely”.
In terms of likelihood of paying, just 4% confirmed that they were “extremely likely” to pay for the Times and the Sunday Times’ online content.
The majority of people surveyed (33%), who agreed to pay, said they’d prefer to sign up for the £2-a-week payment model, while 16% would agree to a one-year subscription and 10% would pay £9.99 a month to download the title on to their iPad.
The poll is likely to be seen as positive for News International, which is expecting to lose around 90% of its online audience. Aside from the 4% of extremely likely payers, a significant number of people sit in the middle tier, which may be open to paying for online content.
“This is great news for Times Newspapers, giving it plenty of room to try to convert a larger minority of susceptible readers than previously thought – people who, right now, aren’t subscribing for sure, but who may be open to the idea,” the MediaGuardian reports.
If the pricing model is to be believed, News International will also be pleased that readers aren’t opting for the lowest-value payment. If users sign up for the £2-a-week plan, they are likely to consider a longer-term option, as it automatically renews every seven days.
However, insiders still doubt Rupert Murdoch’s paywall initiative. Of the readers who are “not at all likely” to pay for access, 70% said they will switch to another free news site, while 15% will continue to reading the Times and Sunday Times free headline page.
News International launched it’s new-look Times and Sunday Times website at the end of May with a limited-time free preview in a bid to entice potential subscribers.
Timesonline.co.uk, which stopped operating today – users will now be re-directed to the new paid-for thetimes.co.uk site, was getting around 1.2 million visits a day in May (according to ABCe).
Last month, media commentators told us their views:
Overall, I don’t think it will work. I can’t see why people will pay for news and comment that is available in abundance for free elsewhere, both online and increasingly offline as well.
Financially it may, in the short term at least, generate more revenue than advertising but that reflects the poor level of ad rates on line currently.
Even if it does prove more lucrative than the current ad paid for model, and even if it generates a reasonable number of users/subscribers, particularly from overseas, I don’t think that this is the right model. What would be much more interesting and arguably potentially more saleable, would be the introduction of a newspaper specifically designed to be read online to coincide with the launch of the ipad. This would not only address the issue of generating genuinely valuable and paid for online content but could also address the other major issue for newspapers – the loss of younger readers
I think that as content is ubiquitous online this will be a true test of brand strength. Will consumers be prepared to place a premium on the Times‘ content over and above everything else that’s available out there; even if some of it will be unique behind the paywall. I believe not, due to learnings in the analogue (print) world – circulation losses and gains are closely aligned to pricing strategies, so why would that be any different online?
The FT has converted a small percentage to pay for its’ niche content so how can a mainstream news and features title do it? If this strategy is measured on revenue alone than no. At best it can drive incremental revenue and maybe more e-commerce activity through offers & promotions but at what cost to the publishing business remains the question for me.