Like them or not, newspaper paywalls continue better-than-expected performances, the latest good (for some of us) news coming from The New York Times Company and Pearson’s Financial Times.
Digital subscribers to The New York Times and its sister paper, The International Herald Tribune surpassed the half-million mark, way ahead of the most optimistic projections. At 509,000, it’s up 12 percent from first quarter and up 80 percent from the 2011 second quarter.
True, as Rick Edmonds points out in a really sharp catch, that 80 percent digital circulation was accompanied by only 11 percent rise in the overall circulation revenue, raising the possibility that the Times’s gaudy circulation rise is artificially achieved with discounts. NYTCo. spokespeople wouldn’t explain the apparent disparity to Edmonds or, separately, to me.
The NYTCo. doesn’t break out the percentage that digital subscriptions make up of total subscription revenue, which includes print ($194 million for the NYT/IHT for the quarter).
Our Ryan Chittum has done some of the arithmetic and found digital subs represent real money, particularly when combined with digital ad revenue, which, contrary to some fears, has done relatively well, post-wall.
…Now that it charges online, The New York Times’s digital revenue more than covers the cost of its newsroom. Digital subscriptions, by my calculations (the NYT doesn’t break these numbers out), already bring in more than $70 million a year, and digital ads are at roughly $155 million (conservatively). That’s at least $225 million a year in digital revenue—and the subscription stream is new and still growing fast, while digital ads are now edging down (though not, apparently, because of the paywall).
Even more important, the FT now says its digital subscribers make up more than half of its roughly 600,000 paid subscribers, having grown 31 percent from the 2011 quarter.
It’s a potent symbolic milestone because it points toward the day, whenever that is, when newspapers become entirely digital products—ones for which people will pay.
The FT’s path is the one not taken in New Orleans, where Advance Publications has lashed itself, and worse, its readers, to the mast of a free model that has necessitated brutal newsroom cuts that will make it harder for it to ever charge, should it so choose. Advance news executives invoked, repeatedly, the period after Hurricane Katrina, when the papers couldn’t print for a few days, as somehow justifying this particular path.
What the FT milestone shows is that “digital first” does not have to mean “free.” It’s not about the trees.
And while it certainly helps to be a globally recognized brand, metro papers in the US have already demonstrated that they, too, benefit from collecting subscriptions with minimal sacrifices in traffic.
Now, Pearson breaks out even less than the TimesCo., so we don’t know how much money the digital subscription revenue represents. We do know total sales for the group, which incudes a newsletter group, Mergermarket, and a 50-percent stake in The Economist , was $339 million for the first half, so let’s double that for a yearly projection of $678 million. It’s worth noting that the fourth quarter is usually the biggest for newspapers, so this a conservative projection.
We also know that FT managing director Rob Grimshaw, speaking at a conference in March, said that overall subscription revenue (digital and print) is set to overtake ad revenues in 2012 (That’s another big milestone).
Let’s see if we can break down the FT’s subscription revenue, working from its published circulation figures and standard (not premium) subscription rates published here (pull down for prices in different regions), here, and here.
A rough calculation would split the 300,000 print subscribers into US and UK markets, since they’re the two biggest and charge different subscription rates, about $979/year for the main print subscription and $424/year for the main online-only option in the UK, and about $579/year and $301/year online in the US.
This is a very rough, in large part because the FT’s pricing is so opaque.
With those caveats, print subscription revenue would come to about $147 million in the UK and $52 million in the US. That puts a rough print subscription revenue total at about $199 million.
Digital is broken into retail, 55 percent, or 165,000 subs, and corporate, whose 45 percent share is more of a black box. The FT sells corporate subscriptions by licenses, reporting sales of about 2,300 in all (the equivalent of 135,000 people), starting at $465/year, but that can go much higher.
Plugging the numbers we have, then, the FT should bring in $45 million in the UK, and $25 million in the US in retail digital subs, making digital-only subscription revenue roughly $70 million, not including corporate.