The Times recently adopted a paid model to monetize their content. I always wondered if it would be more valuable to make the user pay instead of put ads on a web site.
Now that the english changed its model and thanks to figures provided by the Guardian, we can try to guess what is best.
My conclusion is that the Times decreased its revenues by approximately 50%. But they also might have decreased their costs because they don't need any sales person now.
According to the Gardian, there are around 60,000 people that are willing to pay (45,000 already pay and 15,000 have a free suscription but would eventually pay) to read articles from the Times. This makes a total revenue of £120,000 per week (£2 per user per week).
There are still 195,000 users on The Times. With a 84% loss (according to the Gardian) it means that there used to be more than 1,200,000 visits before (I assumed that on average there one visit a week), when The Times was free.
I read on the Experian Hitwise that the average time spent per visit was around 5 minutes. Therefore there should be around 20 ads seen sold at a CPM of £15 (much higher than in France!). This is an expected revenue of £360,000 per week.
If The Times still display ads in their pai model they'll earn an additional £36,000 (20 ads per week per user at a £30 CPM).
In the end, it seems that The Times cut its revenues by two. There are quite some assumptions that have been made, but it seems that the paid model wasn't such a good idea in terms of revenues.