The London "Times", edited by the Group News International of Rupert Murdoch, is the first major newspaper in the world to have adopted a full toll for its Internet site. Other newspapers, such as the "Wall Street Journal" and the "Financial Times" (or, France, most national newspapers, including "Les echos"), have implemented priced areas but some content remain free. Since its July 1, the "paywall" of the "Times" is the object of all the rumors: the hearing, which reached 22 million unique visitors before its implementation, would have reduced by two thirds to 90, according to sources, advertisers have deserted, and the number of subscribers would be low. Gurtej Sandhu, Director of the Digital Times, explains the "Echos" philosophy for this "paywall".
The rumours are very alarmist on the impact of your toll. What is exactly
I can give no figures: they will be released soon. What I can tell you is that the results are consistent with our expectations. And I can assure you that we will not be returned back. On the contrary, we will implement a similar system to "the news of the world", the "Sun". It is a matter of time. Term, all the titles of the group there will pass.
Why a full toll, without free zone
We hope that the message is very clear: the site of the "Times" is paying. Mixed sites, there is confusion. The people do not know what they will find free of charge, for which they will have to pay. We went to a postulate: need to pay a fair price for our journalism. We are one of the few dailies in the world to still have an Office in Iraq or Afghanistan: must be able to finance. It is a basic principle: we want to pay our content, regardless of the medium. Everyone recognizes, newspapers have erred by giving their content free on the Net. This is not yet the case today, but our idea is to pay the same price for our content regardless of the distribution channel.
Is it not risky cross only Cape Town, while your competitors sites remain free
Our competitors will be there. The "Guardian" is losing money, while he is number one for the hearing on the Internet, and among the leaders on the paper. Even with a huge audience, the advertising revenue generated by the free Web is not enough. How long can continue to finance loss Look, "New York Times," come, they no longer have the means to provide their content free of charge. The "paywalls", is the future. In two years, everyone will understand what we do. It is not a return backwards, as some have said. On the contrary, it is a major innovation. Rupert Murdoch is a true visionary: he does not hesitate to go against the grain, to take risks against the dominant thought. He is not afraid. And it is he who made the market. He demonstrated with its many successes in the past.
With the tollgate, did you cross on online advertising revenue
Not at all. Revenue should be balanced between revenues from subscriptions and advertising. It may take time, but the advertisers will provide more value to readers who pay to a free hearing without loyalty. We want more to sell cheap traffic. The rates are too low, insufficient income. Seen well on the iPad, where rates are higher. A more skilled and more committed hearing has more value. The Wall Street Journal is doing not so bad-side advertising...
But we also work much to attract and retain subscribers. They may want to buy our content. We have strengthened the video, image, interactive computer graphics, all exclusive content which are not repeating. This summer the publication of good leaves of the book of Mandelson for example has brought us a number of new subscribers. Our editors are also very famous. And we are now working on marketing our content, without more we worry about our referencing on search engines. Technically, pay content does indeed more referenced. We are looking more to recommend, on social networks such as Twitter or Facebook: If one of your friends can assure you that a great inquiry was published in the "Times", you will pay to read!