By Peter Wood, The Wall, 27th January 2012

What is influence? It’s a massive question in the world of social media. Thousands of man hours are being pumped into companies who are trying to solve the problem in the hope that one day, you’ll be able to search a category and an application will spit out exactly the 5 top influencers you need to be communicating with to push your product.
I’m in the lucky position whereby I could be classed as an ‘influencer’ in a field (not social, sadly!), so I can quickly decipher which tools work and which don’t. I’ve tried blog ranking systems, I’ve had a go on Klout and I’ve used bespoke services. The commonality between all of them? [Read more →]

Back in August last year, Rupert Murdoch announced that he would begin looking to roll out changes that would see users having to pay to read content on News International websites. Well, the time has come when this becomes a reality, with Times Online becoming subscription only from June, following a month of free access to the new site starting early May. Promising a redesigned and far improved site, the new focus for The Times is to build a closer relationship with its most dedicated and loyal readers, which it hopes to do via Q&A sessions with its journalists and editors, and a bunch of new interactive and visual features. The cost for this? £2 a week (or free for current paper subscribers).

It goes without saying that this is a paradigm shift in the way publishers approach monetising their content. The internet was built, and exists on, the ad-funded model meaning The Times are flying in the face of 17 years of convention.

Therefore, this begs the obvious question, will it work?

The Times are certainly not the first newspaper to introduce a paid subscription model. The Wall Street Journal’s online edition has, for two years now, required a subscription for reading a large amount of the content on the site. The FT.com has also successfully operated a scheme where a monthly fee is required in order to view more than 10 articles a month for some time. A key point here though is the differentiation of the publishers. Both the FT and WSJ offer specialised content, are extremely renowned for their quality and offer information that other publications do not (specifically market data in these cases). However, most would probably agree that content on Times Online is much more generic, with a wider public appeal. It is this which makes the move such a debateable one; will people be willing to pay when they can get similar news content from a free competitor site (such as the Telegraph) and how loyal are consumers to these brands?

Aside from this though, there is the question of how this will affect advertisers.

 Advertising will still make up a vast portion of the revenue of the site, and it is the closer connections with its readers that The Times is hoping to leverage in the future. Users of the site will obviously drop dramatically when the paywall is increased (although figures have not been released, the prediction is anything above 50%) so there will be a significant hike in rates. News International argue that more engaged users on the site, along with fewer advertisers, fewer ad formats and more targeting based on subscription data will mean better value overall. But does it? And is it a good road to go down?

This is obviously a very bold play from the Times, being first mover in their area by a long way. My thoughts are that this is a good thing, mostly because I just want to see if the model works! In terms of value though, I think absolutely it increases. Better content, more engagement and a greater understanding of a smaller audience is never a bad thing, and there is value in this. However, there is a serious problem here; this is applying what are traditionally offline, specifically print, branding theories to online, and I worry that many online clients are not ready or experienced with this. In my opinion, the “trackability” of online is both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness. There is so much of a focus on the quantitative information that qualitative factors often get pushed to the sideline, and when inflated CPMs exist on a plan there will surely be scepticism. It’s especially interesting for many digitally focused agencies and advertisers who may not have a great deal of experience and expertise with things like intangible value and brand association, just CTRs and eCPMs.

However successful Times Online’s new approach is will surely dictate how quickly other newspapers follow, and I purposefully don’t say “if” because I can only see it being a matter of time before more news sites adopt a similar model. Quality content understandably costs money, and publishers have struggled to monetise content for years. However, it could be that we don’t see these changes until a standardised micro-payment system is introduced to the web (whether that be via your mobile phone bill, or a common login like Facebook Connect).

In the meantime, The Times will be under heavy scrutiny and only time will tell whether advertisers shun or embrace this new approach. There is one key thing to remember here though: we are marketers first, digital marketers second, and good opportunities should not be dismissed because of lack of familiarity.

Jonathan Harris, Account Manager