Exaro investigative website takes down paywall

Exaro: No paywall as it offers data services

Exaro, the investigative news website launched in October 2011, has taken down its paywall.

Exaro says it is part of a move to focus on add-on data services as its main generator of revenue, rather than subscriptions to the website.

Mark Watts, Exaro’s editor-in-chief, said: “Given the high level of public interest in Exaro’s stories, it is terrific to be able to provide readers with free access to our strong investigative journalism. And, with our development of data journalism to create editorial content and add-on data services, Exaro is at the cutting-edge of where new media is going.”

Exaro says it led the way with an investigation into politicians and other prominent people alleged to have sexually abused children three decades ago; exposed the “Whitehall tax scandal” after revealing how Ed Lester was being paid as chief executive of the Student Loans Company off the payroll, via a personal-service company; and  revealed how Rupert Murdoch indicated in a secretly recorded meeting that he knew for decades that his newspaper journalists were bribing officials.

Exaro has worked with television news programmes and newspapers on several investigations, and is looking to expand its partnership arrangements with other media outlets.

Readers will still need to register with the site to receive newsletters from Exaro. They also need to register and log in to the site to add comments or download source document. The company’s editorial and corporate offices are on the corner of Fetter Lane and Fleet Street.

Express & Star to try 'pay wall' for some content

The Wolverhampton-based Express & Star, the UK's top selling daily regional newspaper, is planning to put some of its online content behind a paywall, with the launch of a new "premium" website, reports Journalism.co.uk.

The newspaper will continue to publish "edited highlights" of the day's breaking news on the front page of the site, but other content will no longer be freely accessible.

Deputy editor Keith Harrison told Journalism.co.uk that the new digital offering was a way of "rewarding our loyal readers".

The premium part of the site will not be sold to readers separately, but will be offered as part of a bundled print-and-online subscription. The decision on what content will appear on which side of the paywall will be made on a case-by-case basis by the editors.

Harrisons aid the new site would launch in "a couple of months" and exact details of the charging structure were still being ironed out.

• The Express & Star has just reported an ABC of 116,992 for the last six months of 2010.

Real test of Times' paywall will be on revenues

BBC technology correspondent Rory Cellan-Jones says the real test of The Times and Sunday Times paywall experiement is whether it will deliver more revenue than was available to the papers when their content was freely available online.

Writing on his BBC blog, Cellan-Jones says: "There are still some imponderables. We know that the 105,000 includes those who have paid for the more expensive iPad app, or to read the papers on Amazon's Kindle but we don't know the split. We are also unclear just how"sticky" these paying customers are - in other words, whether or not they renew their subscriptions at the end of each week or month.

"We do know that around half are paying monthly - that's £8 for the website or £10 for the iPad app - and the rest are paying £1 for a day's access. By my very rough back-of-the envelope calculations that adds up to annual revenue of around £7m. On top of that there will still be some advertising revenue, and with 100,000 paper subscribers having activated their digital editions, the newspapers have a total online audience of 200,000."

He adds: "With a paper like the Guardian now earning around £40 million a year in online revenues, I think it's safe to assume that Times Newspapers has yet to achieve the same revenues from its paywall experiment that were available when its website was free. That's not to say this adventure has failed. The Times has shown that there is an audience, albeit small, willing to pay for digital content, and other newspaper groups are rushing to imitate parts of the experiment, notably the use of tablet computers as a paid platform."

Cellan-Jones disagrees with a claim by Times editor James Harding on the Today programme this morning that his journalists' fears that they might be cut off from the online conversation have proved groundless. He writes: "Really? That's not what I've heard from at least one reporter, frustrated to see rivals enjoy all the online buzz around their stories now denied to a journalist hidden behind the paywall."

Price of the paywall? Guardian has more comments than The Times on Lord Mandleson book exclusive

Interesting to compare the number of comments on The Times online site, now behind a paywall, on its exclusive that Lord Mandelson claims Tony Blair thought Gordon Brown was "mad, bad and dangerous" to that of the Guardian which is carrying the same story.
The Times, (top) which broke the story via its exclusive serialisation of Lord Mandleson's new book, The Third Man, had just 31 comments by 12.30 today.
In contrast, Guardian.co.uk (below) had 243 comments on its story Blair thought Brown was mad, bad and dangerous.
Update: By 6pm The Times had 41 posts and the Guardian 332.

• As well as requiring readers to register and pay to use The Times online site, the paper has also introduced a policy to stop commenters posting under pseudonyms.
  

Sunday Times defends paywall move: 'Why the future of good news is not free'

The Sunday Times in a leader today defends its plan to introduce a paywall for its online content in June.
It says: "At present we are in the absurd position of charging people £2 for our newspaper while simultaneously offering the same content free online. The flawed logic was that internet advertising would pay for it. The recession has put a stop to that, so giving away expensive journalism is financially unsustainable and ultimately bad for us and our readers.
"At The Sunday Times we put an enormous amount of money and effort into producing the best journalism we possibly can. If we keep giving it away we will no longer be able to do that. Inevitably the spending will decline, and with it the quality of the journalism. We will no longer be able to let reporters pursue stories for weeks on end (our investigation of MPs’ lobbying has taken the Insight team eight weeks) or send correspondents to spend months in Afghanistan or Iraq. Such practices are expensive, and there is always a risk they will be unproductive.
"However, without this investment, the British public would see a steady fall in the quality and diversity of the information they receive and learn less about how they are governed. We have perhaps the most lively and competitive press in the world, but that has been possible only because it is based on commercial success.
"The decision to create a separate website for The Sunday Times is thus a significant development. It, too, is expensive and we have decided to charge £2 a week for access to our huge range of content and to that of The Times, which is also building a new website. We believe many readers will be prepared to pay this relatively small amount because they value our journalism and they understand that nothing of value is free.
"We acknowledge the risk involved when much other good journalism is still available free online. However, we believe that if we are transparent with our readers and explain the financial realities, they will support our move. Ultimately we think that other newspapers will follow, and that the only free content online will be of inferior quality or supplied by the BBC. Even that organisation is finally beginning to realise it should stop trying to become a publisher online, and is cutting back on its massive internet spending."
The leader concludes: "We are in the midst of a publishing revolution, and if we get our finances right, you, our valued readers, will benefit from a new golden age in which we can devote more time and money to bringing you the very best journalism in the finest traditions of The Sunday Times."

• One of the posts reacting to the leader shows what newspapers are up against. Mark Minogue writes: "You say that quality journalism costs money, and I believe you. But if the internet is killing your revenues then the most blindingly obvious cost cutting measure is to reduce the overcapacity in the newspaper market by having fewer of them. Im one of the lost millions who no longer buys a newspaper. Why? because the internet hasnt just given me my news for free, its also given me a far greater choice; you are competing in the favourites list in my copy of Google Chrome not just with the Telegraph and Gaurdian but also with the New York Times, The Times of India and The Japan Times ... not too mention Al Jazeera, China Daily, Der Speigel, Il Messaggero, Le Monde ... then there's BBC, CNN .... well, you get the picture. Sorry peeps, but the future of news is free to the consumer, whether Mr Murdoch likes it or not." 

John Humphrys: 'Good journalism has to be paid for or it will not survive'

Broadcaster John Humphrys backs the idea of papers charging for their content online in a Sun article today - and argues that the survival of newspapers matter even more to democracy than the BBC.
He writes: "Good journalism has to be paid for, just as we have to pay for the plumber who fixes a leak, or it will not survive.
"And let's be clear: We have the best papers in the world. Full stop. I want to keep it that way.
"You might expect me to worry more about the survival of the BBC, but love and respect it though I do, newspapers matter even more to a robust system of democracy.
He adds: "They do what we cannot and should not do - they are rude, offensive, disrespectful and bloody-minded.
"They agree with the great humorist HL Mencken who said the correct relationship between journalists and politicians is that between the dog and the lamppost."
"Sure, it's important to have carefully argued, dispassionate analysis but I want to hear the voice of The Sun reader, the saloon bar, the Millwall terrace and the smart middle-class dinner party.
"The BBC broadcasts other people's opinions but it has none of its own. The papers have columnists who are troublemakers, iconoclasts and gossip-mongers and they tell us how they think we should vote.
Humphrys argues: "And we must not put the papers at risk by thinking we do not have to pay for them."
You can read Humphrys' article here for free online before the Sun puts up its paywall.

Guido says Spectator building paywall

Political blogger Guido Fawkes says the Spectator is weeks away from putting up a paywall around its magazine content.
He writes: "Guido hears that the Speccie will within weeks be stealing a march on Murdoch and putting up a paywall around the magazine’s online content. The web-only stuff on CoffeeHouse will still be free, but the magazine content will be sold so as not to cannibalise the print edition."
Guido notes: "The Spectator online was originally behind a paywall, then they dropped it and thus spread the reach of the magazine. Retreating will certainly strengthen the position of influence held by online rival ConservativeHome. Not really sure this is going to produce much revenue."