The cost of Murdoch’s paywall experiment? 90% of The Times traffic.

Way to go Rupert.

Not only are your reporters pissed at the drop in traffic but your advertisers are leaving in droves. All because you knew better than the rest of the web and put everything behind a paywall.

As Rob Lynam told Ian Burrell at the Independent recently

Faced with a collapse in traffic to, some advertisers have simply abandoned the site. Rob Lynam, head of press trading at the media agency MEC, whose clients include Lloyds Banking Group, Orange, Morrisons and Chanel, says, “We are just not advertising on it. If there’s no traffic on there, there’s no point in advertising on there.” Lynam says he has been told by News International insiders that traffic to The Times site has fallen by 90 per cent since the introduction of charges. “That was the same forecast they were giving us prior to registration and the paywall going up, so whether it’s a reflection on reality or not, I don’t know.”

He warns that newspaper organisations have less muscle in internet advertising campaigns than they do in print. “Online, we have far more options than just newspaper websites – it’s not a huge loss to anyone really. If we are considering using some newspaper websites, The Times is just not in consideration.”

I hate to be the one to say we told you so Rupert, but hey – we told you so and so did a whole bunch of really smart people. I realize that Rupert thinks that he is at war with new media and that like Julius Caesar he will triumph but damn man 90% of your traffic down the tubes, advertisers think your not worth consideration anymore.

How you call that winning any war is beyond me, but hey keep it up your competitors will enjoy the increase in visitors and profits.