Comments on: Why the Washington Post will never have a paywall

By: mcichelli

mcichelli — Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:49:11 +0000

I am one of those not-in-DC online readers of the Washington Post. I appreciate having free access, but I would be willing to pay for it – especially if keeping it free threatens the paper’s existence. We NEED papers like the Washington Post to keep our democracy strong.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 10:09:41 +0000

And dont forget that a nice glossy ad in a magazine is sometimes a lovely thing. An internet ad is always annoying. Ergo Lincoln=Annoying, Coke=Annoying, Gucci=Annoying. Advertisers know this.

By: cas127

cas127 — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 01:19:38 +0000

Sounds like a going rate of about $7 CPM for page views (60M monthly uniques * 5 pages per month, per unique /1000 = 300k “M”s to sell, at $7 CPM then $300k * $7 = $2.1M per month in revenue or about $25 million per year).

The *really* scary thing – $7 CPM is a *fantastic* rate for internet page views – there must be a lot of well-heeled, in-bred, lefty Lords handling media buying in negotiations with the Guardian.

Facebook (with page view targeting out the ying-yang) gets about 40 *cents* per thousand page views.

Supply simply *crushes* demand on the internet – driving prices very low.

Why does supply crush demand?

The cost of entry (a blog) is very low and the cost of incremental supply (an ad-bearing post) is even lower.

By: Mathew Ingram

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 00:48:27 +0000

That’s a good point — you are quite right about that. Not long ago, that would have been the average for a medium-sized metro, but now it is larger than most. Thanks for the comment.

By: cas127

cas127 — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 00:47:21 +0000

Byron,

Agreed – some of WAPO’s position is double-talk.

For one, I thought the NYT had a huge number of *digital only* subscribers, behind its picket-fence paywall.

Isn’t that why the “10 cent CPM” internet media has been weeping in gratitude and singing hallelujah for the past year?

(Whether or not the NYT has really been hiding the salami on the actual financials of its digital subs is another matter – for one, why so few specifics on churn, special promotions, etc?)

By: cas127

cas127 — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 00:40:36 +0000

Quick note – in today’s dying MSM environment, 500k in hardcopy circulation does not make WAPO a small or medium metro paper.

It makes them one of the remaining “biggies” – check out the circ stats yourself.

By: Byron

Byron — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 16:59:07 +0000

So, The WP can’t make it work because most of their online readers are outside of their delivery area? That certainly explains why the NYT and WSJ is successful because we all know that their online readers are all in NY.

By: Point finder

Point finder — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 03:59:55 +0000

The Wahington Post has been “experimenting” (e.g. Digital Ink) since the mid-90s. Almost 20 years later, they still have no clue what to do.

By: Question

Question — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 21:37:29 +0000

I wish more would report on the intentional assault on newspapers begun over 5 years ago by Chris Tolles and Topix. Newspaper corporations can take back what is rightfully theirs, from these new media tyrants who have made such a huge mess of it. They need to do this. What’s stopping them? http://tinyurl.com/6ufcjtz

By: Stephen

Stephen — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:19:47 +0000

The reason they’ll never have a paywall is that they’re cutting staff so fast, they’re gonna have no content to put behind the wall.
On another note…did anyone see the figures released by the Guardian, stating how much money their MASSIVE 60m person online audience brings in? Less than 25 million dollars. A car-dealership. Check that… a small car dealership. Meanwhile, the NYT is gonna bring in about 150 million dollars from its paywall. I know I know I know… but then you lose all those precious viewers who make you a massive 40 cents per year. I know.