Jeff and I just participated on a jury for Jeff Jarvis' Entrepreneurial Journalism class at CUNY Graduate School of Journalism. There were 15 presentations by the students in the class. Their assignment was to shape a business idea, including an elevator pitch, a needs statement, market research & analysis, competitive analysis, a product plan, a revenue plan, a marketing/distribution plan, a operations plan, and a launch plan. Our assignment was to evaluate the business ideas and to decide as a group to which ideas we would give some seed funding from a pool of money, how much and what deliverables.
Overall, we were impressed by the level of passion, time and effort that the students poured into their ideas. Moreover, these were journalism students with a great deal of entrepreneurial spirit. It's a positive sign for the future of the media industry.
Unfortunately, we are not at liberty to reveal the ideas themselves, but the ideas were varied and demonstrated the creativity by which the students approached the assignment. Of course, there were ideas that seem to be more viable as businesses than others... but there were also other factors involved in the group's decision, such as leadership, management, and execution capabilities of the students.
In the end, the jury decided to split the pool of money among 4 projects. There were of course other projects that merited some level of funding, but unfortunately as in the "real" world, our pool of money was limited, and we needed to select the "best". We will also mentor some finalists and offer office space to provide a place to further shape their businesses.
As I mentioned to a journalist from The Telegraph who was covering the event, I was very excited to be a part of the jury. We are huge proponents of listening to ideas from the "younger" generation and connecting that drive, passion and creativity with the expertise of experienced professionals who are willing to vet, help and nurture those ideas and individuals. Our company loves to provide internships to listen and learn from the "younger" generation about their vision, needs and ideas about the future of media.
Dec 9, 2009
Apr 3, 2009
Charging for online content? New updated figures for newspapers with a circulation of 50K
>> New updated online spreadsheet
>> Excel file version
In partnership with the NAA (Newspaper Association of America), and the help of Borrell Associates, AdPerfect and Centro, we have put together a new updated spreadsheet exploring different scenarios for paid online content for 50K circulation newspapers. We have run numbers on scenarios ranging from fully paid to mixed paid / free.
Our previous and first post showed 9 different possibilities for paid online content scenarios for a 100K circulation newspaper. We based this first set of numbers on an average of publicly available and proprietary data from North American newspapers (some of which are our clients). This set of scenarios was just a first step in running numbers to take a look at the possible revenue generation.
In this post, we run numbers for a 50K circulation paper to be closer to the average US newspaper.
Key assumptions:
* 50,000 print subscribers
* $17 / month for the print version (7-day)
* Website with 250,000 UV and 2.5M PV
* $12 display ad CPM
* $4.50 local remnant ad CPM
* $0.95 national remnant ad CPM
* 5% unsold inventory
* $.20 CPC with .36% CTR for contextual ads
* In this version we have also introduced a subscriber acquisition cost of $49.18.
For an approximation of the current online revenue based on the above assumptions, the online revenue is a little over $700K.
Then we ran the numbers for the following scenarios:
1st scenario:
No more print version. All print subscribers are subscribing to the website that is 100% behind a paid wall. NOTE: It is highly unlikely that 100% of existing print subscribers would sign up for the web version.We are just demonstrating what could be the potential maximum revenue if all 100% did at HALF the print sub price.
Revenue = $5.2 M
2nd scenario:
Great direct marketing campaign resulting in 2% of current UV subscribing to the website. 100% behind a paid wall. They pay the same price as the print version. For all of the following scenarios, the print version still exists.
Revenue = $1.0 M
3rd scenario: Same assumptions as scenario 2, except the subscription price is halved to $8.50 / month.
Revenue = $524 K
4th scenario: Same assumptions as scenario 2 and 3, except the subscription price is again halved to $4.25 / month.
Revenue = $269 K
5th scenario: Direct marketing campaign resulting in 1% of current UV subscribing to the website. 100% behind a paid wall. They pay the same price as the print version.
Revenue = $517 K
6th scenario: Same assumptions as scenario 5, except the subscription price is halved to $8.50 / month.
Revenue = $262 K
7th scenario: Same assumptions as scenario 5 and 6, except the subscription price is again halved to $4.25 / month.
Revenue = $135 K
8th scenario: Mix of free and paid models. 60% of the site's content is free. There still are 250K UV. 1% of these UV subscribe to the paid part of the website for $8.50 / month.
Revenue = $686 K
9th scenario: Mix of free and paid models. 80% of the site's content is free. There still are 500K UV. 1% of these UV subscribe to the paid part of the website for $8.50 / month.
Revenue = $828 K
You can see these updated figures on my spreadsheet (on the 2nd tab named "50K circ"). You can also download the excel file to play around with the numbers.
As mentioned in the first post, we didn't take into account the cost side (with exception of the introduction of the acquisition cost per subscriber). However, none of these scenarios would cover the actual costs of newspaper operations. In our next iteration, we will factor in the cost side to take a look at net revenue. It will be another one of the critical factors on the end-decision of whether or not to go paid.
If you think something is missing or doesn't make sense, please comment. Also, if you have any suggestions, feel free to let us know. We're always looking to improve upon the analysis. Please email me at anytime at nwang (at)mignon-media (dot)com.
A big thanks to Beth Lawton at the NAA. Thanks as well to Gordon Borrell of Borrell Associates, Inc., Sean McDonnell of AdPerfect and Shawn Reigseker of Centro for their assistance.
More to read:
- Paying for online news: Sorry, but the math just doesn’t work. (Martin Langeveld - Nieman Journalism Lab)
>> Excel file version
In partnership with the NAA (Newspaper Association of America), and the help of Borrell Associates, AdPerfect and Centro, we have put together a new updated spreadsheet exploring different scenarios for paid online content for 50K circulation newspapers. We have run numbers on scenarios ranging from fully paid to mixed paid / free.
Our previous and first post showed 9 different possibilities for paid online content scenarios for a 100K circulation newspaper. We based this first set of numbers on an average of publicly available and proprietary data from North American newspapers (some of which are our clients). This set of scenarios was just a first step in running numbers to take a look at the possible revenue generation.
In this post, we run numbers for a 50K circulation paper to be closer to the average US newspaper.
Key assumptions:
* 50,000 print subscribers
* $17 / month for the print version (7-day)
* Website with 250,000 UV and 2.5M PV
* $12 display ad CPM
* $4.50 local remnant ad CPM
* $0.95 national remnant ad CPM
* 5% unsold inventory
* $.20 CPC with .36% CTR for contextual ads
* In this version we have also introduced a subscriber acquisition cost of $49.18.
For an approximation of the current online revenue based on the above assumptions, the online revenue is a little over $700K.
Then we ran the numbers for the following scenarios:
1st scenario:
No more print version. All print subscribers are subscribing to the website that is 100% behind a paid wall. NOTE: It is highly unlikely that 100% of existing print subscribers would sign up for the web version.We are just demonstrating what could be the potential maximum revenue if all 100% did at HALF the print sub price.
Revenue = $5.2 M
2nd scenario:
Great direct marketing campaign resulting in 2% of current UV subscribing to the website. 100% behind a paid wall. They pay the same price as the print version. For all of the following scenarios, the print version still exists.
Revenue = $1.0 M
3rd scenario: Same assumptions as scenario 2, except the subscription price is halved to $8.50 / month.
Revenue = $524 K
4th scenario: Same assumptions as scenario 2 and 3, except the subscription price is again halved to $4.25 / month.
Revenue = $269 K
5th scenario: Direct marketing campaign resulting in 1% of current UV subscribing to the website. 100% behind a paid wall. They pay the same price as the print version.
Revenue = $517 K
6th scenario: Same assumptions as scenario 5, except the subscription price is halved to $8.50 / month.
Revenue = $262 K
7th scenario: Same assumptions as scenario 5 and 6, except the subscription price is again halved to $4.25 / month.
Revenue = $135 K
8th scenario: Mix of free and paid models. 60% of the site's content is free. There still are 250K UV. 1% of these UV subscribe to the paid part of the website for $8.50 / month.
Revenue = $686 K
9th scenario: Mix of free and paid models. 80% of the site's content is free. There still are 500K UV. 1% of these UV subscribe to the paid part of the website for $8.50 / month.
Revenue = $828 K
You can see these updated figures on my spreadsheet (on the 2nd tab named "50K circ"). You can also download the excel file to play around with the numbers.
As mentioned in the first post, we didn't take into account the cost side (with exception of the introduction of the acquisition cost per subscriber). However, none of these scenarios would cover the actual costs of newspaper operations. In our next iteration, we will factor in the cost side to take a look at net revenue. It will be another one of the critical factors on the end-decision of whether or not to go paid.
If you think something is missing or doesn't make sense, please comment. Also, if you have any suggestions, feel free to let us know. We're always looking to improve upon the analysis. Please email me at anytime at nwang (at)mignon-media (dot)com.
A big thanks to Beth Lawton at the NAA. Thanks as well to Gordon Borrell of Borrell Associates, Inc., Sean McDonnell of AdPerfect and Shawn Reigseker of Centro for their assistance.
More to read:
- Paying for online news: Sorry, but the math just doesn’t work. (Martin Langeveld - Nieman Journalism Lab)
Feb 7, 2009
Newspaper: Charging or not for online content? Numbers for 9 scenarios.
>> Direct access to our online spreadsheet.
UPDATE 2 (2/9/09): We added a new tab to the online spreadsheet with other numbers.
UPDATE 1 (2/8/09): Based on your feedback (thanks to all), we have updated the numbers and uploaded a new excel file.
The paid model scenario is back into the conversation. Is it a good idea for newspapers to go back to OR begin an online full or partial paid model? We have been thinking about different scenarios, and calculating the revenue outcome. We based our numbers on figures from different newspapers in North America.
Base assumptions:
Then we ran the numbers for the following scenarios:
We didn't take into account the cost side. However, none of these scenarios would cover the actual costs of newspaper operations. It would be interesting to have the acquisition cost / subscriber and advertiser. It will be another one of the critical factors on the end-decision of whether or not to go paid.
If you think something is missing or doesn't make sense, please share a comment. Update the file and send it back to me at nwang(at)mignon-media(dot)com.
UPDATE 2 (2/9/09): We added a new tab to the online spreadsheet with other numbers.
UPDATE 1 (2/8/09): Based on your feedback (thanks to all), we have updated the numbers and uploaded a new excel file.
The paid model scenario is back into the conversation. Is it a good idea for newspapers to go back to OR begin an online full or partial paid model? We have been thinking about different scenarios, and calculating the revenue outcome. We based our numbers on figures from different newspapers in North America.
Base assumptions:
- 100,000 print subscribers
- $14.75 / month for the print version (7-day)
- Website with 500,000 UV and 10M PV
- $10 CPM (3 impressions per page)
- $.20 CPC with .5% CTR
Then we ran the numbers for the following scenarios:
- No more print version. All print subscribers are subscribing to the website that is 100% behind a paid wall. NOTE: It is very unlikely that 100% of existing print subscribers would sign up for the web version.We are just demonstrating what could be the potential maximum revenue if all 100% did.
Revenue = $6.1 M - Great direct marketing campaign resulting in 2% of current UV subscribing to the website. 100% behind a paid wall. They pay the same price as the print version. For all of the following scenarios, the print version still exists.
Revenue = $1.8 M - Same assumptions as scenario 2, except the subscription price is halved to $7.50 / month.
Revenue = $943 K - Same assumptions as scenario 2 and 3, except the subscription price is again halved to $4.75 / month.
Revenue = $613 K - Direct marketing campaign resulting in 1% of current UV subscribing to the website. 100% behind a paid wall. They pay the same price as the print version.
Revenue = $907 K - Same assumptions as scenario 5, except the subscription price is halved to $7.50 / month.
Revenue = $472 K - Same assumptions as scenario 5 and 6, except the subscription price is again halved to $4.75 / month.
Revenue = $307 K - Mix of free and paid models. 60% of the site's content is free. There still are 500K UV. 1% of these UV subscribe to the paid part of the website for $4.75 / month.
Revenue = $1.6 M - Mix of free and paid models. 80% of the site's content is free. There still are 500K UV. 1% of these UV subscribe to the paid part of the website for $4.75 / month.
Revenue = $2.0 M
We didn't take into account the cost side. However, none of these scenarios would cover the actual costs of newspaper operations. It would be interesting to have the acquisition cost / subscriber and advertiser. It will be another one of the critical factors on the end-decision of whether or not to go paid.
If you think something is missing or doesn't make sense, please share a comment. Update the file and send it back to me at nwang(at)mignon-media(dot)com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)