iPad news advertisements command 5 times more than Web ads

Posted:
in iPad edited January 2014
Advertising on print publications repurposed for Apple's iPad draws a fee up to five times more than buying placement on the same content provider's website.



While the news doesn't quite mean the iPad will "save" print publishing, as online advertising is a fraction of what publications receive in print, it is a sign that the iPad could become a major factor in revenue for those in the news business, according to the Associated Press.



The report from Andrew Vanacore said it's likely that news organizations will hold back free content from their websites in the future, opting instead to provide news to users who subscribe on tablet-style devices like the iPad. And although Apple has already sold 2 million iPads, the market will have to become much larger for it to have a major effect on a news organization's bottom line.



JPMorgan Chase & Co., which was the exclusive advertiser of the New York Times application for the first 60 days, also revealed that the click-through rate for iPad advertisements is a remarkably high 15 percent. The report noted that the online average for people viewing an advertisement is about one-tenth of a percent.



iPad readers also spend a great deal more time with content. Publisher Conde Nast revealed that the average reader spends 60 minutes with a monthly issue on Apple's device, compared with the average website visit length of less than 5 minutes per month.



One of the biggest problems with online advertising is the unlimited amount of space available. In a newspaper or magazine, space is finite based on the number of printed pages, adding more value. Online, limitless space makes advertising less valuable. The AP also noted that online ad networks allow advertisers to get placement at discounted rates. But the supply-and-demand issues haven't yet appeared in the iPad, which has been on the market for just over two months.



"In iPad applications such as USA Today's, there is a finite amount of space and no ad networks are in the mix," the report said. "And the app gives advertisers new possibilities. A reader can click on Courtyard by Marriott's USA Today ad and then with a flick of a finger scroll through images of the hotels' updated lobby design. Another tap and a high-definition video appears, full of happy hotel guests."



Jason Fulmines, director of products for USA Today owner Gannett, said the publication charges Mariott about $50 for every thousand ad impressions, while the going rate on the newspaper's website is less than $10.



But while the numbers are better on the iPad, they're still not as strong as they are in the newspaper. The cost per thousand in the print product, which is distributed nationally, runs $103 -- more than twice that of the iPad and ten times that of the website.



More evidence of the premium nature of the iPad, with respect to advertisers, will come with Apple's own iAd mobile advertising network. Early reports have suggested that Apple intends to charge as much as $10 million for companies to have initial placement in the iAd network. After the launch, Apple reportedly aims to charge close to $1 million for ads on its mobile devices -- much higher than the $100,000 to $200,000 companies pay with existing mobile deals.



Publishers, too, have made great investments in bringing their content to the iPad, and so far it's been a positive. The AP noted that The New York Times had more than 300,000 downloads of its free newspaper application by mid-May. A few weeks earlier, Apple had announced iPad sales had topped 1 million, suggesting a very high number of iPad owners downloaded the Times application.



The recently released $4.99 iPad edition of Wired, a Conde Nast publication, quickly jumped to the top of the App Store sales chart. The magazine utilizes new digital publishing technology developed by Adobe, which allows the print publication to work on an iPad edition at the same time, and add in interactive content such as video and animated graphics.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 36
    saareksaarek Posts: 978member
    In the UK the Times newspaper app has sold 5000 copies in the last 7 days, they charge £10 (around $15) a month for access, that's damn good money already and will only increase as more ipads are brought into the UK!
  • Reply 2 of 36
    bageljoeybageljoey Posts: 1,720member
    I know that advertising is a great source of revenue (look at Google)...

    And I understand that if content providers can command high add prices it bodes well for content on the iPad...



    ...But I still can't get excited about it.
  • Reply 2 of 36
    spotonspoton Posts: 645member
    Quote:

    Advertising on print publications repurposed for Apple's iPad draws a fee up to five times more than buying placement on the same content provider's website.





    Yea, because the users of iPads can't install software or browser plugins to block the ads.



    Kinda sucks losing control over one's hardware huh?
  • Reply 4 of 36
    steviestevie Posts: 956member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    One of the biggest problems with online advertising is the unlimited amount of space available. In a newspaper or magazine, space is finite based on the number of printed pages, adding more value. Online, limitless space makes advertising less valuable.



    "In iPad applications such as USA Today's, there is a finite amount of space





    Damn. Some people will believe anything.



    Magazines have different numbers of pages. They can include unlimited numbers of ads. Remember Byte? Remember how thick it was? Ever seen the special yearly issues of Vogue?



    Apps can expand and contract. Who knows, maybe the next issue of WiReD will contain a few more ads? Or maybe less?



    And web pages do not have unlimited space. They need an appealing ratio of advertising to content, or else they lose readers.



    The reasoning parroted in this story is all total bullshit.
  • Reply 5 of 36
    rot'napplerot'napple Posts: 1,839member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpotOn View Post


    Yea, because the users of iPads can't install software or browser plugins to block the ads.



    Kinda sucks losing control over one's hardware huh?



    I don't see the ads?! Oh... that's because I don't visit print publications repurposed for Apple's iPad!



    Guess I do have some control after all!



    Just like I don't by Nike's extortion priced shoes so they can pay royalties to an already rich athlete for a product that does what? Cover feet... FEET! New Balance works fine for me! Still lov'in that control!
  • Reply 6 of 36
    bartfatbartfat Posts: 431member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post


    I don't see the ads?! Oh... that's because I don't visit print publications repurposed for Apple's iPad!



    No one said you had to see those magazines... it's really for those that are interested in the content of those magazines.
  • Reply 7 of 36
    Fives times as much for a fraction of the number of eyeballs?



    P.T. Barnum was right.



    I suspect this bubble will correct itself within six months as the novelty of the new device wears off....
  • Reply 8 of 36
    kfury77kfury77 Posts: 44member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stevie View Post


    damn. Some people will believe anything.



    Magazines have different numbers of pages. They can include unlimited numbers of ads. Remember byte? Remember how thick it was? Ever seen the special yearly issues of vogue?



    Apps can expand and contract. Who knows, maybe the next issue of wired will contain a few more ads? Or maybe less?



    And web pages do not have unlimited space. They need an appealing ratio of advertising to content, or else they lose readers.



    The reasoning parroted in this story is all total bullshit.



    +1 .
  • Reply 9 of 36
    aaarrrggghaaarrrgggh Posts: 1,545member
    Sadly, I agree with SpotOn.



    The reason the click-through rate is so high is because people accidentally hit it because the interaction mode with the device is touch. I know all it did for me was piss me off and remove the NYT App when I accidentally clicked on a Chase ad.



    Here's to a jailbreak or a ad-blocking proxy. Not sure which route I want to pursue so far.
  • Reply 10 of 36
    boogabooga Posts: 1,070member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpotOn View Post


    Yea, because the users of iPads can't install software or browser plugins to block the ads.



    Kinda sucks losing control over one's hardware huh?



    Ad-blocking is as close to stealing as you can get these days and still be considered socially acceptable. Seriously, if you like a site don't ad-block it! If the ads (ie. cost) isn't worth it to you, go somewhere else instead of taking it for free.
  • Reply 11 of 36
    eh270eh270 Posts: 60member
    The headline is mildly confusing.. "command 5 times more" what? Attention? Clicks?
  • Reply 12 of 36
    spotonspoton Posts: 645member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Booga View Post


    Ad-blocking is as close to stealing as you can get these days and still be considered socially acceptable. Seriously, if you like a site don't ad-block it! If the ads (ie. cost) isn't worth it to you, go somewhere else instead of taking it for free.





    When ad makers get together and develop standards acceptable to the consumer perhaps I will.
  • Reply 13 of 36
    spotonspoton Posts: 645member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post


    I don't see the ads?! Oh... that's because I don't visit print publications repurposed for Apple's iPad!



    Guess I do have some control after all!



    Just like I don't by Nike's extortion priced shoes so they can pay royalties to an already rich athlete for a product that does what? Cover feet... FEET! New Balance works fine for me! Still lov'in that control!





    Then you would LOVE Joes NewBalance
  • Reply 14 of 36
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,807member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by eh270 View Post


    The headline is mildly confusing.. "command 5 times more" what? Attention? Clicks?



    Money, a$$wipe, sorry that was a lil too easy.
  • Reply 15 of 36
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpotOn View Post


    Yea, because the users of iPads can't install software or browser plugins to block the ads.



    Kinda sucks losing control over one's hardware huh?



    Apparently that's only the beginning of Apple's plans:



    Quote:

    Apple Prepares to Rock the Market with Hardware Subsidizing Program



    The US Patent & Trademark Office published a patent application from Apple today that reveals various concepts behind a newly advanced service in development that entails subsidizing an incredible array of hardware from Apple. The hardware ranges from their sizzling hot iPhone to Apple TV - the set top box - to an actual television, notebook, iPod touch and more. The subsidization could also cover software from Apple or third party developers. What's the catch? You'll have to endure a very complicated and savvy advertising scheme that makes sure that you're paying attention. If not, the system can freeze the user out until compliance is met. This isn't for everyone, especially if ads in your face are something you want to avoid at all costs. But for the mass market, this is a whole new ballgame!

    ...

    In other words, Apple is going to ensure advertisers that there'll be no way for users to get around playing their ads. In addition, Apple can further determine whether a user pays attention to the advertisement. The determination can include performing, while the advertisement is presented, an operation that urges the user to respond; and detecting whether the user responds to the performed operation. If the response is inappropriate or nonexistent, the system will go into lock down mode in some form or other until the user complies. In the case of an iPod, the sound could be disconnected rendering it useless until compliance is met. For the iPhone, no calls will be able to be made or received.



    In the case of a desktop or notebook, the UI and its components (e.g., menu bars, icons, etc.) may be faded, darkened, brightened, blurred, distorted or otherwise visually modified during the initial state (or while the advertisement is being presented) so as to emphasize that the desktop UI is temporarily inactive.



    http://www.patentlyapple.com/patentl...g-program.html
  • Reply 16 of 36
    spotonspoton Posts: 645member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post


    Sadly, I agree with SpotOn.



    The reason the click-through rate is so high is because people accidentally hit it because the interaction mode with the device is touch. I know all it did for me was piss me off and remove the NYT App when I accidentally clicked on a Chase ad.



    Here's to a jailbreak or a ad-blocking proxy. Not sure which route I want to pursue so far.





    I hear it's possible to block the ad servers through your router.





    Also if one uses the iPad Safari agent in Mac Safari and has the LittleSnitch outgoing firewall installed, visiting the NYT site shows a hidden connection to Akamai servers.



    Likely nothing harmful, but if one uses the iPad/Safari to visit Adult oriented websites there is nothing to warn one of these hidden browser connections because Apple won't even mention LittleSnitch on their website, much alone allow it to be on the App Store.



    Oh, but we are not supposed to view porn. *smacks head*





    Amazing facts about internet porn



    http://www.businessinsider.com/14-am...n-porn-sites-1
  • Reply 17 of 36
    paulmjohnsonpaulmjohnson Posts: 1,377member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Booga View Post


    Ad-blocking is as close to stealing as you can get these days and still be considered socially acceptable. Seriously, if you like a site don't ad-block it! If the ads (ie. cost) isn't worth it to you, go somewhere else instead of taking it for free.



    I'm with you on this. One problem with the internet is that people have come to believe they are entitled to everything for free, then when a way is found to allow content providers to give you the product for free, people chose to block that.



    I don't want to start a debate as to what constitutes "quality", but I believe it's worth having quality journalism (i.e. edited by a professional), and if ads allow that to happen, I'm in favour. I'd actually go further and say people should be allowed to pick and chose, so if I want an ad free version of something, I can just pay my share, if I want it free, I get the ads.



    Now, there needs to be some responsibility on the behalf of the content creators, to not have the ads be too intrusive, but the market should correct problems where ads are too intrusive (i.e. people will stop using the product). But, if there is to be responsibility on behalf of the content providers, there has to be responsibility on the consumer side, and to me, that is accepting ads as a way of life, if you want things for free.
  • Reply 18 of 36
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpotOn View Post


    Oh, but we are not supposed to view porn. *smacks head*



    That was just more random competitor FUD, apparently nothing Apple actually takes seriously:



    Parents' organisation catalogs iPhone porn

    http://www.tgdaily.com/unbalanced/49...gs-iphone-porn



    More:

    http://www.google.com/search?q=porn+on+iphone
  • Reply 19 of 36
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,558member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post


    I'm with you on this. One problem with the internet is that people have come to believe they are entitled to everything for free, then when a way is found to allow content providers to give you the product for free, people chose to block that.



    One reason for blocking ads, especially Flash ads, and Google ad placements (and analytics) is for privacy reasons. If companies weren't constantly violating people's privacy on the internet, there would be less motivation to block ads, scripts, etc.



    It is an unfortunate circumstance that this is not entirely possible on mobile Safari versions, about the most one can do is clear cookies once set, although, the lack of Flash support does contribute to suppressing that privacy violation. I think it's very important that Apple provide mobile Safari users a way to protect their privacy, or, maybe someone will (or have they already?) create a WebKit based iPhone/iPad browser that includes privacy protections.
  • Reply 20 of 36
    spotonspoton Posts: 645member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post


    Now, there needs to be some responsibility on the behalf of the content creators, to not have the ads be too intrusive, but the market should correct problems where ads are too intrusive (i.e. people will stop using the product). But, if there is to be responsibility on behalf of the content providers, there has to be responsibility on the consumer side, and to me, that is accepting ads as a way of life, if you want things for free.





    If annoying ads wasn't a problem then there wouldn't be a need for ad blocking mechanisms, it wouldn't bother people enough to do something about it.



    I don't think people like denying their favorite sites a means of support, but many have little choice in the matter.



    Advertisers feel some need to create energy in the viewers of their ads to get them respond, annoying or distracting them with blinking, animation, sound and popups/unders that demand a response.



    The viewers respond alright, by using Firefox and the Ad Block Plus plug-in, which by the way can whitelist certain sites like this one.
Sign In or Register to comment.