It is interesting that the print edition’s circulation has tumbled 7 percent in the last year. One of the main reasons I think paywalls ought to be considered is because they help stop cannibalization of a profitable product (the newspaper) by a deeply unprofitable one (the ad-only Web site). This number dents that idea a bit, though there’s no way of telling whether that 7 percent decline would have been more if the Web site were free. But the NYT doesn’t attempt to explain why, in a year when the interest in financial news has skyrocketed, the FT’s circulation is down so much—while its competitor, the Journal, is up.
Lastly, the NYT doesn’t explore the obvious: that the FT’s website is just not very good. It’s ugly. It’s not user-friendly. It needs a lot of work. It’s no fun paying good money for something as poor as that, the main reason I recently declined to renew my Web subscription and now stick to the print paper, which is a far better information-delivery system than its Web site.
You can often bypass the FT paywall by Googling FT story headlines.
#1 Posted by Bradley J. Fikes, CJR on Mon 17 Aug 2009 at 01:18 PM
the link for the NYT's article is incorrect; it launches and email with the URL as the addressee.
#2 Posted by James Igoe, CJR on Mon 17 Aug 2009 at 07:36 PM
Thanks for the headsup, James. I've fixed it now.
#3 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Mon 17 Aug 2009 at 08:49 PM
The drop in circulation is actually easy to explain: the FT twice increased its cover price since June last year. The paper now costs 50 per cent more than it did only a year ago (1.50 UKPound on weekdays instead of 1UKPound - there were corresponding rises in other regions). As management said repeatedly and publicly, this formed part of a deliberate effort to trade circulation for higher revenues. Whether that was a wise move or not is debatable, but it does make the 7 per cent drop in circulation look rather more positive...
#4 Posted by TB, CJR on Tue 18 Aug 2009 at 12:33 PM
Right on, TB. That's all stuff that should have been in the NYT's story.
Also it's part of the trend toward relying more on circulation revenue than ads, something I think is smart if you can do it.
#5 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Tue 18 Aug 2009 at 01:16 PM