>"Depending on the actual CPM, financially they are doing at least two to four times better than they were before."
However we're talking about the website, and that really works in a different way and it's obvious that the Times does not understand the way the web and search engines work.
Whilst I think BBC News on radio and TV is good quality, the website is often of appaling quality.
Name a startup that actively hid from its users and survived? Can you even think of a startup that actively hid from its users?
If they are able to generate more revenue, perhaps they will be able to restore the quality that the industry has lost and use real journalists again. They could build a reputation of quality over sensationalism.
Who are these suckers paying for access?
One of the main things you are losing is influence, all those readers have gone to another paper to get their news.
Nevertheless an interesting experiment, we will see how long the times keeps this up.
Can anybody who knows more about this than me shed any light here? How much more does it cost to serve millions of "freeloading" users per month vs the 100,000 they're dealing with now?