Posts
July 2, 2010 - a day that will go down in history, or if not, will straightforwardly go down the pan for The Times' owner.
While newspapers circulation has fallen 25% between 2007-2009, Murdoch's blood circulation has rushed up to his head and decided it was time he took another tack.
As shoving his head into a bucket of ice was not the most sensible idea, putting up a paywall, to all intents and purposes, is.
Before the paper starts hemorrhaging too much cash and all the eyes are on the new strategy, an e-stream of diligent brand loyalists-turned-switchers beeline quietly towards the Guardian.
Pay walls work for certain brands. The FT.com have a different target market - wealthy businessmen.
The target market is more focused and easier to analyse. Lifting revenues is controllable through the paywall strategy.
On the other hand The Times readers have recourse to its publication because it's A: the quality of the editorial (Better than the Granuad, in my humble opinion) B: they are conservative and C: It's free.
Unless you don't live and breathe the brand, people will desert it. The loyalists will be a minority. The die-hard Times readers will strive to put in their £1 a day to get a giggle out of Jeremy Clarkson's pablum and Ozzy Osbourne's pap.
Obviously, I am no Cassandra. Murdoch has a few tricks up his dirty sleeve. He's aiming for £30m a year from a new ad deal.
Will the new pricing regime offset the loss of online readers?
