I think they have missed an obvious point here...people who read newspapers online do so because they are unwilling to pay for them....therefore they will be unwilling to pay for the website - or have I missed the blindingly obvious that the highly qualified financial advisers to The Times obviously know?
The Times website collects about £15m to £18m a year from on-line advertising.
On-line readership would drop enormously from the present estimated 20.4 million when people are asked to pay £104/year. Probably advertising revenue would also drop, (or advertisers would only be prepared pay much less), if fewer people are reading their ads.
Lets say, 100,000 people subscribe, (as has been suggested), this is about 1/200 of the existing readership. If advertisers only pay pro-rata to readership, then revenue from this source would be around £75,000.
Add this together to the readers subscription fees, you get a total of around £10.4 million.
This is less than they have at present.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.