Filloux Filloux

382 views

Published on

Presentation at the INMA seminar in Copenhagen "Re-creating Value in An Age of Abundance".

Published in: Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
382
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
16
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Filloux Filloux

  1. 1. Time to pay? paywalls: mirage or oasis? frederic filloux copenhagen, february 4th, 2010
  2. 2. why now ?
  3. 3. after all...  ...we were all advocate of the free model  it had its virtue:   universal access / visibilility   readers participation   incoming linking / Google-friendliness
  4. 4. (Alan Rusbridger, Guardian's editor) 
 "If you erect a universal pay wall around your content then it follows you are turning away from a world of openly shared content." ...
  5. 5. (Alan Rusbridger, Guardian's editor)
 " (...) Editorially it is about the most fundamental statement anyone could make about how newspapers see themselves in relation to the newly-shaped world."
  6. 6. why now ?
  7. 7. a chain reaction
  8. 8. 1. the adverstising crash
  9. 9. the failure of the ad model  CPM are lower then ever   click-through rate never took off   endless inventories are pushing prices further down with ad networks acting as bottom feeders   Google is sucking up revenues  design flaw: web publishers are caught in some inherent contradiction
  10. 10. the failure of the ad model  CPM are lower then ever   click-through rate never took off   endless inventories pushes prices further down with ad networks acting as bottom feeders  design flaw web publishers are caught in some inherent contradiction
  11. 11. the failure of the ad model   CPM are lower then ever   click-through rate never took off   endless inventories pushes prices further down with ad networks acting as bottom feeders   design flaw web publishers are caught in some inherent contradiction
  12. 12. three main causes 1.  a non credible audience mesurement Nielsen, ComScore, Quantcast are just disasters 2.  a lack of creativity from the advertising community with very little innovation in ad packages 3.  an individualistic approach by publishers unable to cooperate left plenty of room for bad players. Among them...
  13. 13. ...the classifieds pure players
  14. 14. (Francis Morel, CEO of Le Figaro) "In the early nineties, the newspaper’s revenue from classifieds was about €150m per year. Now, it is €12m..."
  15. 15. the classifieds consumption (an example on the French market) Le Monde : 16 mn per viewer and 19 pageviews per month leboncoin.fr (free classifieds): 1hr 02mn per viewer 177 pageviews /mo (at the same time, facebook : > 4hrs 31mn and > 530 PV) (source : NNR France Dec 09)
  16. 16. 2. the Facebook/ Google sucking effect
  17. 17. going up:   Global time spent on social networks in Dec. 09: +82%   +200% on the US market alone   Time spent on Google in the US: +43%   money is shifting: between Aug. 2008 and Aug. 2009:   amount invested online on the US market : -2%   share invested on social networks: +119% source: NNR
  18. 18. ...going down:  time spent on newspapers web sites :  Nov. 2006: 42 min per mo. and per visit  Nov. 2009: 32 mn
  19. 19. 3. consequence: the collapse of the Arpu
  20. 20. a massive revenue depletion on print but also online since 2005, US newspapers have lost 57% of their print advertising revenue online advertising, lost 26% since the peak of Q4 2007 over the last 4 years, each gain of one dollar on digital translated into a loss of 55 dollars on print
  21. 21. (Clay Shirky, Professor NYU
 "The old models are breaking faster than the new models can be put into place..."
  22. 22. revenue per reader $612 per year per buyer $200 per year per reader $10-12 per year per Unique visitor
  23. 23. revenue per reader a web viewer brings 16-20 times less than a print reader
  24. 24. looking at others ARPUs $7-10 3$ $1.5 $0.85 $1.5 $15 (20-30 times less than a mobile carrier)
  25. 25. (Chris Anderson, author of the bestseller "Free!) "..Free is not enough. It also has to be matched with Paid..."
  26. 26. here we are!
  27. 27. time to squezze out of the user (someway)
  28. 28. two ideas: • no audiences are made equal • the necessity of an hybrid approach
  29. 29. fragmented audiences
  30. 30. the monetization   young audiences: free is critical OK for invasive ads and giving up private data   ature audiences: m more reluctance to ads but more willingness to pay
  31. 31. the platform   different device for:   each type of audience   each kind of news content: breaking news, features, services   each type of use: home, office, commuting
  32. 32. the hybrid approach
  33. 33. choosing its audience
  34. 34. choosing its audience 
   [principle]: "... free for the audience I pick, 
 paid-for for the ones who choose me..." ‣ geomarketing ‣  hronomarketing c ‣ audience analysis
  35. 35. new model will combine:   ree and paid-for f   rint and electronic medias p   hree legs: t   dvertising a   ubscription s   ay-per-view (or metered system) p
  36. 36. the paid-for option: 5 ways to reverse the free trend   target the heaviest users   focus on the type of uses not on the old "basic vs.premium" principle   offer a better user experience   find a "fricton free" payment system   iversify the platforms d
  37. 37. how much and how many?   the notion of average is meaningless; for instance: willingness $/mo 5 10 15 to pay 62% Italy $7 $16 60% Norway $4 $11 49% Australia $3 $9 source : BCG ‘‘know your 20/80“
  38. 38. thanks! frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com

×