I’d been meaning to write this post for a while or at least every time I skip to the homepage of The Times and skip away just as quickly. I don’t understand why it pushes news so much on its homepage when it is all available to read elsewhere for free. It makes no sense.

I got spurred into writing this today finally after reading an interesting post on Newsosaur. Alan Mutter argues (rightly, about the US market, I think) that the planned paywalls of all but the few are doomed to fail in part because of the spread of low cost local content like that being developed in the US by Yahoo!, AOL, the Huffington Post and others.

There are simply too many sites offering too much free news for many paywalls to make it. Their stories will be republished elsewhere in minutes of going live. There is just no way to fully protect content – news at least.

Add the local sites like MinnPost and Outside.In to the hyperlocal efforts of AOL’s Patch.Com, MSNBC’s Everyblock.com, the local expansion announced recently by Yahoo! and Gannett, of start-ups and the local broadcasters and you start to see an increasingly saturated market where only “publishers of mission-critical business or government news” like the WSJ.com could make it.

But what does that mean for higher quality titles like The Times and The New York Times, which plans its paywall launch early next year.

The NY Times  must be looking at the experience of The Times in London, which is according to rumour and gossip struggling to achieve paywall momentum. It is still offering its £1 trial offer for the first 30 days and faces questions about whether it has adopted the right strategy in putting everything behind a paywall and giving nothing away for free. The New York Times plans a metered paywall whereby some content will be free.

But that isn’t the only element of its strategy that is in question. There is also the issue of content and how The Times uses it on its homepage.

My issue is shouldn’t it be promoting its exclusive content much more and restructure its homepage accordingly? Its model at present remains news centric, which appears a redundant strategy. It also appears incredibly dated and reflects far too closely its print product. Earth to digital bods at Thetimes.co.uk you are on the web. I know, I just visited your site.

This morning’s lead news story is a case in point. It details a reported tie-up between the British and French governments regarding the sharing of naval resources. A good story to be sure and one that I can not read on The Times website, but what I can do is read it literally everywhere else (to drive that point home the top Google News entry is an AFP story quoting The Times). Likewise for its co-lead story about Pakistan and cricket.

Why then does it remain the lead story and dominate the Times homepage? I don’t need to pay to read about aircraft carrier sharing as it is freely available on dozens of sites? What else do you have – pitch it to me, please b(ut remember I’m lazy and might not scroll down and go below the fold).

Mutter argues publishers need to forget about paywalls and focus on their marketing. Well if you have a paywall you need to do both and that also means marketing on the site itself as at the moment all The Times homepage says to me is “we have the same news content as everyone else…but you have to pay for it”. That’s not going to work.

It doesn’t matter how good that news might be most news consumers will take the quick hit.

“Instead of putting cycles into exercises like charging for access to obituaries, publishers need to focus their marketing power, content-creating resources and ad-selling capabilities on developing unique print, web and mobile products that will be valued by consumers and advertisers alike,” Mutter says.

Read also on The Wall

New York Times tests paywall on local title – asks readers for $14.95 a month

Times paywall is a “foolish experiment” that won’t last, says Wikipedia founder

Open letter to Rupert Murdoch concerning The Sunday Times paywall