Nielsen says 360,000 behind The Times paywall – how many are paying?
UPDATE – Figures out today from Nielsen are estimating that The Times has 362,000 unique users behind its paywall each month. There is no way to tell how accurate these figures are although Nielsen says it is confident of the number.
The metrics firm also says that rather than a 90% + fall in traffic at The Times and Sunday Times websites have suffered an 88% drop in UK unique users since News International erected its paywall.
The estimate for the number of people behind the paywall is based on The Times having 3.1 million UK unique users in the second quarter of 2010. This figure has fallen to 1.78 million overall.
Of those 1.78 million regular visitors to the site Nielsen is estimating that one in five or there abouts are now are behind the paywall.
Clearly the initial figures will include many who have trialled it or got free access and we don’t know how many are on going subscribers. My gut feeling from online chatter is that while there might well be 362,000 uniques active behind the paywall not all of those will be paying subscribers. The number is too big. I don’t know how high as News International has yet to release any data. It has kept it well under lock and key.
Number buying Times subs online is very low
However, a source has just told me that the number of people buying online subscriptions at The Times is very low. That means much of that audience behind the paywall, that 362,000 of which Nielsen says it is confident, are either print subscribers or people who have free access.
The Times has 121, 326 print subscribers and The Sunday Times has 123,404 print subscribers giving a total of 244,730. All of these people will have online access to one paper or the other (Sunday Times subs can not access The Times). This could mean if these print subs are actively a few times a month the number of non-print subscribers behind the paywall is 117,270 – although some might be dual subscribers so that figure could be higher.
I still doubt that all of these 117,270 are paying. Some of that number will have free access, and if only a fraction of people are paying online, that suggests that the 362,000 could be off and that the real number is far lower.
In addition, the metrics firm is putting a higher value on those who are paying based in part on the amount of data you have to hand over as a subscriber. I wonder if advertisers and ad agencies will buy that?
“Those behind the paywall, who actually paid online, provide an extra revenue stream in their own right. Furthermore, all registered paying customers, whether they subscribed offline or online, provide a richer sales proposition which should command a higher premium because of the detailed personal opt-in data they provide to the publisher. Signing up to the Times paywall online, for example, involves nine required fields of personal data.”
It also argues that as these users have registered and paid they can offer a more committed and engaged audience. To back this up Nielsen says that in Q3, Times paywall visitors averaged 42% more pages per person a month than the average Q2 pre-paywall visitors .
The Nielsen figures also back up what executives at The Times said recently (that the site wasn’t aimed at young people) that the audience is older and wealthier.
Nielsen says that households earning between £50K and £80K make up a larger part of the paywall group at the expense of those earning less than £20K and that paywall audience also tends to be older.
The over 50s account for 52% of the paywall group and the over 65s account for 16%.
The footprint of the over 50s group, as you can see in the chart above, has increased at the expense of the 25-34 year old age group who now account for just 13% of the paywall group compared to 22% of the general audience. That’s a big fall.
This gives The Times online a fairly mature audience that is going to be of concern to advertisers. It also starkly underscores the fact that young people are hard to convince to pay for this type of content.
According to John Baylon, group digital trading director at Starcom MediaVest, of most concern will be the dip in the number of those 25- to 34-year-old visitors.
I blogged a few weeks ago that assistant editor for online at The Times, Tom Whitwell, said that the Times paywall is not interested in young people. Whitwell said: “Young people are not a particular target of this particular product [The Times]” while Sandhu added that the paper had seen a decline in younger people before implementing the paywall.
UPDATE – Coincidentally The Times paywall appears to be down again (1540). Probably for another spot of maintenance.
You might remember The Times paywall was down in September as the paper’s circulation hit a low.
Tabloid paywall wars – Daily Mirror and the Sun to fight it out
Times paywall not interested in young people; no user data for weeks or months
The Times website loses another 120,000 readers to paywall
Has the Times paywall killed its blogs?
Paywalls: The Times Vs The New York Times, social media Vs anti-social media
All Comments
Let’s be clear here. The Nielsen analysis discloses the number of people viewing content behind the Times paywall (362,000). It does not estimate the number of paying subscribers. The 362,000 monthly visitors behind the paywall includes: online subscribers, print subscribers being given access online, and, crucially, those given a free demo.
Classic post by someone eager to believe paywall won’t work. Says the number is too big on no evidence other than his gut? Quotes an unidentified source as having told him? Doesn’t compare the reported older reader profile with previous pre web reader profile – bet they are the same (or that is what my gut tells me)
Call this journalism?
Well the chart says it all Patrick. Over 50s and over 65s have all increased while younger groups have all fallen.
I don’t have a problem with paywalls and am convinced that if done correct they will work as I have written before:
Paywalls: The Times Vs The New York Times, social media Vs anti-social media
I have always believed that one should think twice before gambling one’s reputation on Rupert Murdoch failing.
@Alasdair you’re right, he isn’t going to give in or fold any time soon. He has deep deep pockets. That doesn’t mean he or his execs gets it right every time. MySpace is evidence of that as is its axed digital news platform- ‘Project Alesia’.
Complete Bollocks again. There is no way 1 in 5 people hitting the Times are paying for it. This will be much more like 1 in 20 maybe even 1 in 50.
The print subscribers total you have is inflated as some people will surely subscribe to both print products and you’ve added the numbers together.
This would probably mean there are more online subscribers than you suggest.
It was always about quality of subscribers I think than volume? I also think one has to look at the total digital offer and include iPad subs. I moved to the iPad as a subscriber rather than the website..
Dont forget they are talking about unique users / browsers – not the same as people. If I come in during a month on my home PC, laptop and work PC that counts as three uniques.
Once you subtract the print subscribers, those on a free trial, duplicate machines for single users and all of those people who looked in when the paywall went down in September, Beehive City’s estimate of 15,000 paying subscribers looks quite realistic.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by BrandRepublic, Gordon MacMillan, Cathy Bussey, David Lawrence, peter leonard and others. peter leonard said: RT @MediaWeek: Nielsen says The Times paywall has more than 360,000 subscribers http://bit.ly/bBI3tY [...]
[...] Modèle économique // Selon Nielsen, le Times de Londres aurait perdu 88% de son audience (The Wall… Désormais derrière un mur payant, le site du Times de Londres compterait désormais 362000 visiteurs uniques par mois selon Nielsen. Le trafic aurait chuté de 88%. (tags: modele-économique payant mur paywall audience Times UK Murdoch) [...]
[...] Last week Nielsen estimated that The Times had 362,000 unique users behind its paywall each month. If you add those thought to be pure digital subscribers with those who get it bundled with print then that figure is way out. [...]