Does traffic drop spell trouble for Times paywall?

But How Many Paying?

The report fails to identify how many visitors have paid for subscriptions. The 'time spent' figures would suggest very few- without this info the traffic data is of limited value

By incognitii on 17 Aug 2010

Don't forget there's loads of non-news stuff such as jobs.times.co.uk that isn't behind the paywall. They must account for a fair amount of the traffic.

By PaulOckenden on 17 Aug 2010

Reading between the lines

"The decrease in page views means people visited fewer sites on The Times website. So it could be that they only visited the homepage."

Well duhh!

The statistics over 6 months or so will prove more interesting, as people get used to the idea that these newspapers aren't free.

Personally I've not visited The Times Online web site for weeks, nor do I intend to.

By Lacrobat on 17 Aug 2010

"dove"?

By KevPartner on 17 Aug 2010

@KevPartner

That would be my North American roots showing.

Nicole

By Nicole_Kobie on 17 Aug 2010

Completely meaningless survey

Many previous (free) subscribers like me are STILL being offered 30 days free trial. Only when this offer has expired by 30 days will we have any idea whether paying is a good idea either for us or for News International. So a non-story really?

By jonathandk2 on 17 Aug 2010

Just to early to tell

I don't think it's a non-story -it's just too early to tell. Once or twice a month a Google link from a new story takes me to the Times and I leave as soon as it asks me to login.
What would be useful would be knowing how many have actually signed up to pay -a figure I don't expect to be published any-time soon.

By milliganp on 18 Aug 2010

No Comment!

The interesting point that before the paywall, the website engagement was in the lower areas suggest people do not rate The Times as authoritative. This has something to do with the owner - Murdoch owned = biased. The title would be better off with a different owner.

That the read time is now 4 minutes suggests little engagement, and that only the free first page is getting scanned.

That there are free areas (I didn't know that - I just gave up reading it completely) would explain why there are a number of page views still taking place.

Whilst the newspaper industry is still looking for a payment method (the only one I can see is a pay as you browse measured in pennies per page acros all newspapers), the public flat out rejected any silly notion of being stung £1 per day and thereby tied to one newspaper.

It would seem hard to observe any good news for The Times here.

So when asking about the number of subscribers achieved, the continuing response from The Times will be 'No Comment!. That in itself will speak volumes about their success.

By chrisclarkgold on 19 Aug 2010

Financial Times

The FT went this way some years ago. I can't comment on what the sire is like since then, as I've never paid to view anything (like many, I expect), but it would be interesting to see what the real drop was from someone who has already done it.

By pike_by_nature on 21 Aug 2010

Amazon show the way

@chrisclarkgold

Why don't these web sites use a system similar to Amazon's S3 storage.

I've set up a test account for S3 to see how good it is and, so far, my costs are less than a dollar. They haven't even billed my card yet - I assume because they have a threshold before they charge an account.

If they had a system like this I'd definitely pay. I certainly will not pay per day/week/month.

By JohnJohn164 on 23 Aug 2010

Amazon show the way

@chrisclarkgold

Why don't these web sites use a system similar to Amazon's S3 storage.

I've set up a test account for S3 to see how good it is and, so far, my costs are less than a dollar. They haven't even billed my card yet - I assume because they have a threshold before they charge an account.

If they had a system like this I'd definitely pay. I certainly will not pay per day/week/month.

By JohnJohn164 on 23 Aug 2010