Felix Salmon

Paywall math, Guardian edition

By Felix Salmon
January 25, 2010

There’s been a lot of speculation on this blog about the economics of the NYT paywall. So let’s stop speculating and look at what Alan Rusbridger, the editor of the Guardian, has to say on the subject. After all, the Guardian, and its website, are in a very similar situation to that of the NYT: a newspaper which has a huge online audience, but which is still losing a lot of money. What’s more, there’s a good chance that a NYT paywall, if it’s set high enough, will catapult the Guardian into position as the most widely-read newspaper in the English-speaking world.

My commercial colleagues at the Guardian – the ones who do think about business models – want to grow a large audience for our content and for advertisers, and can’t presently see the benefits of choking off growth in return for the relatively modest sums we think we would get from universal charging for digital content. Last year we earned £25m from digital advertising – not enough to sustain the legacy print business, but not trivial. My commercial colleagues believe we would earn a fraction of that from any known pay wall model.

They’ve done lots of modelling around at least six different pay wall proposals and they are currently unpersuaded. They’re looked at the argument that free digital content cannibalises print – and they look at the ABC charts showing that our market share of paid-for print sales is growing, not shrinking, despite pushing aggressively ahead on digital. They don’t rule anything out. But they don’t think it’s right for us now.

The New York Times, like the Guardian, is currently seeing little if any erosion of its print circulation from the fact that it’s available for free online. That might be counterintuitive, but it does seem to be true, at least for the time being. So if I’m right that the main purpose of the NYT paywall is to shore up the newpaper’s print circulation, this would seem to be a weird time to implement it.

In fact, the reverse is true: with Rupert Murdoch seemingly hell-bent on putting paywalls around all of his newspaper properties (although not, as Rusbridger notes, around SkyNews.com), a lot of Murdoch’s readers are going to look elsewhere for news. And many of them will find their way to the Guardian and the NYT. I’m told that the current plans for the paywall around the Times and the Sunday Times are for what John Gapper calls a “Berliner”: no meter, no free content, just a wall which you have to pay to get past. I’m sure that Rusbridger is licking his lips in anticipation.

3 comments so far | RSS Comments RSS

The majority of people, who like to read the news, now tend to look on line and not to a printed hard copy newspaper.
Television newscasts are in the US and elsewhere geared to local happenings.
Hence, one has travelled a little and appreciate the world is spherical not flat and we all need to communicate, on line, news is the preferred medium.
It is after all cleaner, less waste full or our finite resources, and, easier to comment on and digest.

Posted by The1eyedman | Report as abusive

Very informative keep up the good work. Sometimes I disagree with you but that is how it should be.

Posted by MSGret1 | Report as abusive

There’s not much point in putting a paywall up for Sky News. The TV station is free to air, so it’s not like they’re cannibalising subscription revenue, even in theory.

Posted by GingerYellow | Report as abusive

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/