Times Paywall: Wrong model? Major test of brand? Costly error?

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.

Murdoch already has experience of how this model works in terms of Sky. If you have content that no one else has – i.e. top end football, then people will pay for it.  If they can get it elsewhere, or the quality of your product is of less quality – i.e. lower league football, then they will not. This is also borne out by a study I did for the EU on VOD over ten years ago.

There are also other issues in terms of technological platforms that the material is available on and who owns the access to data via that platform – see current discussions over Apple and Google. There is also the question over whether the concept of a newspaper as a conveyor of news is still valid – most have long ago given up the role of being first to market with news to TV and radio.

How much then does the public value papers that are mainly comment?  Would digital papers be better as sources of in-depth reporting and information, that support and develop straight news and comment ?

The Murdoch strategy will not work whilst the Guardian and the Telegraph are free to access – if the others follow suit, then it has a chance. Although Murdoch has a habit of leading the way forward with the UK national press.