More on the paywall issue

There are two interesting articles in The Observer on The Guardian web site relating to newspapers and paywalls. The first from David Teather reports the drop in users of The Times web site since the pay wall went up...

The Times newspaper's website has lost two‑thirds of its audience following the implementation of a paywall, according to data published yesterday – a dramatic decline, but not as steep as many had forecast.

But David reports there may have been reasons for this...

The drop may have been softened by an introductory charge of £1 for the first 30 days. Murdoch aims to charge £1 per day for access to the site or £2 for a week. According to Experian Hitwise, which monitors internet traffic, the biggest drop in audience came in the five weeks ahead of the paywall going up, when visitors were asked to register their details. The site lost 58% during that period and the decline has only been modest since the wall went up.

The second article by Peter Preston reports that whilst The Times might be loosing on line readers The Daily Mail is doing very well the increasing traffic appears to be bringing in the ad revenue....

Take the Mail in print. Around 1.9 million punters buying a copy every day, which means 4,881,000 readers scanning their favourite sheet each morning. And online, the growth from nothing much four years ago to 40,500,000 unique browsers a month is verging on the phenomenal: up 72% year on year. Through 2009, the Telegraph and the Guardian were two close competitors – sometimes ahead, often very near to, the Mail. Not now. Both still have good growth of their own, but Associated's electronic baby – 16 million unique browsers in the UK, 26.3 million in the rest of the world – begins to hint at a different league.

He reports that The Mail is doing some things differently, firstly....

Unlike its rivals, the Mail shuns newsroom integration and runs online operations totally separately, which means that costings and revenue are separate, too.

and secondly....

There is no rule that says online papers must play print's little brother. On the contrary, the most successful ones are more like inspired riffs on a print theme. Nor is there a rule that says big print sellers carry the same clout when they transfer to screen. 

So it seems that The Mail is doing things differently and is driving traffic to its on line site to an extent that the on line product could be about to turn a profit soon. But at what cost....

Look at those yards of celebrity gossip and pictures on the site; this isn't the Mail we know (and don't much love). This is a different beast that somehow doesn't count because it fights unfair.

So offer gossip and celeb pictures for free and watch the traffic come in.  It is a sad reflection on our society that to get the traffic to the on line version of a newspaper,  increase the amount of gossip and celeb pictures and you can soon turn a profit from advertising alone.