Just a quick thought that I mentioned in a tweet earlier today, it just occurred to me today.

When the Times website goes behind a paywall in June this year they’ll be hoping that 5% of their current readers convert to paying for it. Well that’s fair enough if that happens (I’m doubtful) but those converting will be the people that value their editorial content and know the quality of the content already. But looking forward, how are they going to attract new subscribers?

How are people going to know that the Times publishes quality content when they can’t even see it? What happens if people decide to no longer subscribe for it? How are they going to make up for those that stop paying?

I suppose what I’m trying to get at is why would a new reader decide to spend a pound accessing a day’s content that is probably being reported to a similar quality and depth on sites like the Guardian or BBC News?

I guess this all stems from the fact I don’t understand why anyone would choose to pay for a particular site’s news, I suppose I’m the sort of young troublemaker who has come to expect news to be freely available. Of course living in the UK and having to pay the TV License fee has its benefits; BBC News will always be ‘free’.

But all the same it doesn’t seem to have a long term future. Even if all news sites did go behind a paywall how would they advertise their content and entice readers to their content when people can’t see it?

Just seems an odd plan.

Thoughts?

So do you reckon a paywall is the best plan moving forward?