The great media experiment begins as London’s The Times and Sunday Times erects a paywall that requires online readers to subscribe.

So what are they selling? Simple really, either you buy today’s edition – or you buy a subscription to all the editions this month.

No atomic content sales here! No micro payments of 2p for 1 article – no! Just as we forecast, we have returned to selling newspapers!

Hurray!

The big question now is – can The Times make it work?

Well, time will tell – but let’s take a look at their offer. You have two choices

• £1 for a day pass (ie today’s edition) – sold rather like WiFi access is sold – on a time limited basis.

or

• £1 for 30 days (ie a subscription) – with repeat billing at £2 per week after the first month – or £8.66 per month.

So what does this tell us about strategy?

Clearly, everyone will choose the £1 for 30 days over the £1 for one day! So, the pricing is designed to turn us into subscribers.

And, what are we subscribing to? A £104 per year subscription. Is that a lot or a little? Well, my Economist subscription renewal has just arrived and I’m offered a 47% discount which means I pay £108 per year.

Practically the same then!

What is interesting is how this relates to buying copies at the newstand. Each copy would cost £1 during weekdays and £1.50 for the Saturday paper. The Sunday Times costs £2.

So, add it all up and you ‘could’ spend £442 per year on buying every copy of The Times and The Sunday Times. So, will the offer be shown as 77% off? Well, maybe, but who buys every copy every day? Perhaps a library – but no sane individual?

Hence, there would appear to be a growing practice of charging just over £100 for an annual subscription for a quality news feed.

And it fits well – because even if you took the view that you would only buy the paper 3 times per week plus the a Sunday paper – and not holidays – so 48 weeks of the year – your annual cost would still be £240.

And, of course, this subscription gives you access to the mobile (iphone) edition too – which, if bought through a different iPad subscription is a more expensive £9.99 per month. Now, the iPad edition is not great to navigate – the FT does a far better job – but that is another story.

The point is that the current pricing model adopted by The Times makes internet buying of newspapers a bargain!

Great – so the pricing strategy is clear – and is based on The Economist superbly successful subscription model. Now, will it work?

Want me to get off the fence and answer that? Well, of course, I have to say yes.

Why? Simply, the pricing is very attractive but also based on very sound principles – The Economist probably the best selling subscription product in the world and people are already paying for it – and The Times have taken a leaf out of their book (or newspaper).

The Times and Sunday Times are taking their first steps to charging for news.

You can register at http://www.timesplus.co.uk/welcome/index.htm to get a ‘preview’ of what is to come  – and yes, it is all about paying, but it is also about paying for the new generation of digital media.

The point here is that we are about to see a new generation of digital media – perhaps partly inspired by the new devices that can carry it – but far more interactive, graphical and video based, than before.

Interesting development.

What media looks like on the iPad

So, what is significant about this?

… you are looking at an issue – a publication – no longer looking at atomised content – or a collective of individual pages.

What is clear is that this is a particular issue from a particular time covering all the issues, the scores, the stories and the trivia that were alive and interesting and relevant at that time.

It is an issue. It has a date. In time, it gives a glimpse of what was important back then, when it was published.

Media then, is attempting to return to its roots with its latest devises – that is publishing newspapers, magazines and books – only this time with multi-media content.

Perhaps we should have labled this post Back to the Future?

The FT is not going to ’sell content’ online but they are going to start to sell daily newspapers online. Remember, the daily newspaper is the essence of any newspaper brand.

In an interesting report (also on the FT) the news was headlined as FT selling content for micropayments.

However, the really interesting news is that the FT is not going to sell individual articles (content) – but individual daily newspapers.

The mooted price is £2 – which is a similar price to what people pay at the newsagents.

It does rather seem that we have a hallelujah moment here. Suddenly, online media looks like offline media only distributed digitally as opposed to via newsagents.

Suddenly, you get the feeling here, what’s the big deal to buy a newspaper for £2? Do you have an issue with that? Of course not.

So, by dropping all this nonsense of online media is different, we can just see digital as a different distribution route for the same ideas.

Of course, there may be a few interesting developments here – such as the daily print newspaper containing a voucher which allows the reader to view it online… to deliver an enhanced brand experience  … an automatically download copy to your iPad …. or perhaps not?

It will be interesting to see what the FT does – and then even more interesting to see how the FT adapts its model to reflect consumer response.

But this is the first clear sign that media owners will return to selling packaged and branded goods (in this case a daily newspaper) and stop all the silly nonsense around selling single articles for pennies.

Print media owners figured out years ago that readers didn’t want to stand at the newstand shelling out 2p for each article they found interesting. No, they just wanted to hand over the money, get the package/ paper/ book/ magazine, and take it away.

Not so very different after all?

We Live in Interesting Times! (with apologies to the FT’s We Live in Financial Times strapline)

The question occupying all media folk is ‘will content sell online?’ To which there is not yet a satisfactory answer.

Why?

I suggest that the question itself is nonesense and hence the argument for or against the sale of ‘content’ is fallacious.

Okay, that’s a big claim, so where am I coming from?

I’d suggest that in the real world (or offline) no one ever buys ‘content’. They do, of course, buy newspapers, books, magazines, reports, directories etc… all of which are brands – or bought mainly because of the brand and only on occasions because of the content.

When I buy a newspaper, I am buying a package. Yes, I get ‘content’, but that content is wrapped within a brand.

Brands have trust and values and relationships with me and other consumers. But publishing brands have more – they have a voice – a set of coherent opinions which lead me (willingly) to see the world through the eyes of the editor or author.

I believe that in traditional form, we have always bought the brand first and content second, although I accept that we can be seduced by a headline or enticed to buy a evening paper to read the cricket score on the way home.

However, most content brand purchases are repeat purchases. I buy Animals and You for my younger daughter when I pass through the airport – I used to be interested in the free gift, but no more – as I know she likes it what ever content it contains.

So, the ‘content’ argument has only occured because the internet allows us to break up the brands into pieces of content. This was never possible before – you couldn’t buy a single article from The Times Newspaper, so the question never arose.

But here is the interesting thing. I love the new layout on Yahoo.com. It allows me to place all my favourite brands – and even my own brands – on the left hand column – so every morning I can review all the new headlines from my favourite brands before I decide which to read.

My use of google has fallen – and I probably spend 90% of my time on my favourite brand sites. I bet yours has too?

We are beginning to see the creation and defense of internet publishing brands.

So, I think we – as consumers – begin from the aggregate or brand.

Take a novel even. You may argue that you buy the novel because of its content? I would disagree. You can not sample the content of a novel until you have read it – at which point you either don’t need to buy it or just return it to the library. However, some people do buy their favourite books that they have already read (from the library).

Music is different – as you can sample or even listen to the whole track on the radio before you buy it. Hence, it makes sense to sell tracks on the internet – but books are not the same.

With books I am buying into the brand – the brand of the author, the review on the back cover, the brand of the bookshop, how it feels in my hand or how it is laid out before my eyes on a screen. I may also be seduced by the price offer or the title or the smell of the book. I may even sample the content – read a page or two – but this is just to confirm that the contents are as I expect them to be – that they are consistent with the branding messages.

The reason Huffington post (a free online newspaper) does well is because it is a very powerful brand. One of its brand values is free access and make a donation – that is written into its DNA. I wouldn’t like to run this publication as it is deeply political and close to fund raising and quite a long way from publishing – but that is what it is.

I don’t expect my favourite newspaper to behave like this – and my relationship with it can be different so I’ll pay for it even though the Huffington Post might be free.

When we think first about ‘what would make you buy this brand online’ then I think we can have a debate about how to make content sell.

If a FMCG company starts from ‘how to make money from my online brand’ then one of the first things it does is start publishing or pushing ‘content’ onto Youtube etc… This makes us think that they are publishing businesses – which I would disagree. They are brands that are using publishing and broadcasting to sell. They are treating it as a marketing channel.

The challenge then, for media companies, is to ensure that their brand remains relevant for its audience and I believe that the essence of this lies in the transparency of media, which is not what you expect if you play a video game provided by a product seller.

Now, the argument is turned on its head and we ask ‘will publishing brands sell online’ we can have Polish newspaper launches (from a German publisher) making money and we can have a free to air political online newspapers.

It all makes sense – each is sticking to its brand. Which is truely the only way to make money online.