Publishers relieved to see half of iPad subscribers opt in to share data
Publishers using Apple's iPad in app subscription program are finding that half of their customers are opting in to share their data, erasing the main point of contention that magazines and newspapers maintained with Apple.
Concerns that iPad subscribers would refuse to voluntarily share their name and address initially had content publishers upset with Apple's opt-in policies. However, according to a report by Forbes, "fear that Apple?s policies would deny them the consumer data they need to do business was unfounded."
Publishers were concerned that iPad subscribers would overwhelmingly refuse to share their data, just as many readers on the web refuse to provide demographic information even in exchange for free access to content.
The report cited Mark Edmiston of iPad publisher Nomad Editions as having heard talk about the 50 percent opt-in figure from other publishers, so he approached Apple's vice president of internet services Eddy Cue, who confirmed the figure.
"So, all the sudden," Edmiston said, "what was an insurmountable obstacle no longer is."
Jeff Bercovici, writing the entry for Forbes, noted that the high opt-in rate "makes a real statement about how much trust Apple customers place in the company?s ability to create user experiences that are safe and enjoyable."
Over the last few weeks, a variety of major publishers have decisively jumped on the Apple subscriptions bandwagon, including Bloomberg BusinessWeek; Time Inc, the largest magazine publisher in the US, which will be offering People, Sports Illustrated, Time and Fortune; Condé Nast, which announced plans to add subscriptions to all of its iPad magazines including The New Yorker, Wired, Golf Digest, Glamour, Vanity Fair, Self, Allure and GQ; and Hearst, which will initially be offering Esquire, Popular Mechanics and O, The Oprah Magazine, followed by other magazines and newspapers.
Concerns that iPad subscribers would refuse to voluntarily share their name and address initially had content publishers upset with Apple's opt-in policies. However, according to a report by Forbes, "fear that Apple?s policies would deny them the consumer data they need to do business was unfounded."
Publishers were concerned that iPad subscribers would overwhelmingly refuse to share their data, just as many readers on the web refuse to provide demographic information even in exchange for free access to content.
The report cited Mark Edmiston of iPad publisher Nomad Editions as having heard talk about the 50 percent opt-in figure from other publishers, so he approached Apple's vice president of internet services Eddy Cue, who confirmed the figure.
"So, all the sudden," Edmiston said, "what was an insurmountable obstacle no longer is."
Jeff Bercovici, writing the entry for Forbes, noted that the high opt-in rate "makes a real statement about how much trust Apple customers place in the company?s ability to create user experiences that are safe and enjoyable."
Over the last few weeks, a variety of major publishers have decisively jumped on the Apple subscriptions bandwagon, including Bloomberg BusinessWeek; Time Inc, the largest magazine publisher in the US, which will be offering People, Sports Illustrated, Time and Fortune; Condé Nast, which announced plans to add subscriptions to all of its iPad magazines including The New Yorker, Wired, Golf Digest, Glamour, Vanity Fair, Self, Allure and GQ; and Hearst, which will initially be offering Esquire, Popular Mechanics and O, The Oprah Magazine, followed by other magazines and newspapers.
Comments
They yell about the whole in app buying thing cause apparently everyone will jump to that over continuing to use the same website they have been using for the last X years. We'll see if that happens either. I'm betting not
They're not happy to just make a good magazine, offer it for sale, and make a profit. No, that would be too honest.
Instead they will jump up and down and spit the dummy unless they can know how many cornflakes you have trodden in to the carpet.
That was their main point of contention? Just goes to show what scumbags they are.
They're not happy to just make a good magazine, offer it for sale, and make a profit. No, that would be too honest.
Instead they will jump up and down and spit the dummy unless they can know how many cornflakes you have trodden in to the carpet.
Demographics are very important. All they're asking for is very general info. Age group, sex, location, income, etc.... Its how they make money.
The NY sub is excellent by the way. I like that I don't have to have stacks and stacks of the mag in my apt because I'm too lazy to throw it in recycling!
It also shows that consumers don't need to choose between having a service provided to them (in this case, subscriptions) and privacy. You can have both.
The publishers wanted control that's why they're upset, and they still don't have control. That's why I believe they're still going to be upset, until they all go bankrupt. It will happen, because in the future, writers could just go to Apple's platform to publish their books without the middleman.
Writing's not as easy as you seem to think it is.
That's good for the publishers...but I would be part of the 50% that wouldn't share my info!
Ditto. Glad to see that we comprise 50% of the market. I completely stopped subscribing to magazines many years ago after I realized they were selling my personal info to other marketers.
So the publishers are all yelling about the whole 'you must ask them' rule cause they figure everyone will say no. But the people didn't.
Didn't they? It all depends on how it's portrayed. Imagine if the title of the article was: "Publishers Furious Over Losing 50% of Their Demographic Data", and they self-reported a doomsday scenario where they would all be out of business within 5-7 years. Seriously, 50% is literally a glass 1/2 empty vs. glass 1/2 full story, that can be emphasized whichever way you like.
Demographics are very important. All they're asking for is very general info. Age group, sex, location, income, etc.... Its how they make money.
Holy cow, I'm not sure what planet you come from, but here on Earth that's not "very general info", that's highly coveted, very personal info. Do you talk about your income with your all your new acquaintances? No? Then why on earth would you give that information to a corporation on the other side of the country that wants to use it to profile you for marketing purposes?! Your age? Address? Why??? Now in iOS the publishers only get name, email, zip code. But these guys aren't stupid, in many if not most cases, that's enough to put the rest of your profile together when matched with other data. Anyone who thinks otherwise is sadly naive.
Okay, all the griping aside, I'm glad they came to this agreement. It's apparent that 50% of the (early adopter) population doesn't give a flip about sharing personal info with random companies. Fine. And now the rest of us don't have to do that, and we can all happily have access to quality digital media at a reasonable price. Rah.
We're talking about 95% of most print magazine/newspapers' revenue stream (advertising), so losing that much of their lifeblood is a pretty big deal.
Anyway, Apple do has the right to ask whatever they want regarding there store, but what they cant do is prohibit any kind of competition. The only way Apple can get away with rip-off conditions is because of there monopoly on iOS.
Small resellers and services providers are starting to fall apart ( http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-18438_7...?tag=mncol;txt ), but since the big names like Amazon, Zino, Netflix, .... are still unaffected, the press (and the FTC) are not paying attention yet.
Lets see what happens on june 30th.
/popcorn
Ditto. Glad to see that we comprise 50% of the market. I completely stopped subscribing to magazines many years ago after I realized they were selling my personal info to other marketers.
Didn't they? It all depends on how it's portrayed. Imagine if the title of the article was: "Publishers Furious Over Losing 50% of Their Demographic Data", and they self-reported a doomsday scenario where they would all be out of business within 5-7 years. Seriously, 50% is literally a glass 1/2 empty vs. glass 1/2 full story, that can be emphasized whichever way you like.
Holy cow, I'm not sure what planet you come from, but here on Earth that's not "very general info", that's highly coveted, very personal info. Do you talk about your income with your all your new acquaintances? No? Then why on earth would you give that information to a corporation on the other side of the country that wants to use it to profile you for marketing purposes?! Your age? Address? Why??? Now in iOS the publishers only get name, email, zip code. But these guys aren't stupid, in many if not most cases, that's enough to put the rest of your profile together when matched with other data. Anyone who thinks otherwise is sadly naive.
Okay, all the griping aside, I'm glad they came to this agreement. It's apparent that 50% of the (early adopter) population doesn't give a flip about sharing personal info with random companies. Fine. And now the rest of us don't have to do that, and we can all happily have access to quality digital media at a reasonable price. Rah.
You sir are a dumbass. Nowhere did I mention address. Demographics are done in ranges, which I can probably guess just by looking at you. A neighbor asking you how much you make is being nosy but a publisher does it to accurately gear advertising towards you.
You sir are a dumbass. Nowhere did I mention address.
In the voice of Steve Martin: Excuuuuuse Me! You said "location", which really doesn't mean much in this context. What they ask for in this case, as I said, is: name, email, zip code. And then we'll add the data you suggested: age group, sex, location, income.
So now that it's name-calling time (wtf?) I guess you're a bigger dumbass than I, because you somehow think that advertisers can't match that information to an address. Either you are woefully ignorant of the real world or, well, there's no "or"...
Serious marketing firms can fully match most people with nothing more than name, age, zip code. They'll peel out every other bit of info available, including your address. If you think this is no big deal, fine for you, but apparently it's a big deal to 50% of the folks that are now subscribing to digital magazines.
A neighbor asking you how much you make is being nosy but a publisher does it to accurately gear advertising towards you.
No, a publisher asking for that info is nosy as well. I don't want any of these asshats profiling me to "accurately gear advertising toward me". Period. Thankfully, the data highlighted by this article shows that I'm not alone, and thankfully Apple stands as a protective buffer between its paying customers and the publishers, and allows us to make that decision as we see fit.
In the voice of Steve Martin: Excuuuuuse Me! You said "location", which really doesn't mean much in this context. What they ask for in this case, as I said, is: name, email, zip code. And then we'll add the data you suggested: age group, sex, location, income.
So now that it's name-calling time (wtf?) I guess you're a bigger dumbass than I, because you somehow think that advertisers can't match that information to an address. Either you are woefully ignorant of the real world or, well, there's no "or"...
Serious marketing firms can fully match most people with nothing more than name, age, zip code. They'll peel out every other bit of info available, including your address. If you think this is no big deal, fine for you, but apparently it's a big deal to 50% of the folks that are now subscribing to digital magazines.
No, a publisher asking for that info is nosy as well. I don't want any of these asshats profiling me to "accurately gear advertising toward me". Period. Thankfully, the data highlighted by this article shows that I'm not alone, and thankfully Apple stands as a protective buffer between its paying customers and the publishers, and allows us to make that decision as we see fit.
You made my point for me. When one subscribes to a physical periodical the address alone has a wealth of information. The average income of the neighborhoods residents, prices of houses, your race, the size of your family, and even your sexual orientation, now they'll mostly be guessing but will most likely be right than not. On the other hand if a subscription is purchased through Apple the publisher does know if the person lives in a duplex on Central Park West or in a mobile home in West Bubblefuck. That is their concern and a big one at that.
P.S. apologies for the dumbass remark
Serious marketing firms can fully match most people with nothing more than name, age, zip code. They'll peel out every other bit of info available, including your address. If you think this is no big deal, fine for you, but apparently it's a big deal to 50% of the folks that are now subscribing to digital magazines.
You made my point for me. When one subscribes to a physical periodical the address alone has a wealth of information. The average income of the neighborhoods residents, prices of houses, your race, the size of your family, and even your sexual orientation, now they'll mostly be guessing but will most likely be right than not. On the other hand if a subscription is purchased through Apple the publisher does know if the person lives in a duplex on Central Park West or in a mobile home in West Bubblefuck. That is their concern and a big one at that.
P.S. apologies for the dumbass remark
Well that's uncommon here, but accepted. And ditto.
I think you're making some of the same points, just from a (presumably) different vantage.
Subscribing to a physical periodical obviously includes the address, which, as you mention, leads to a treasure trove of statistically-likely information. But the age of physical subscriptions is winding down, and giving a publisher access to that kind of information needs to be a decision made by the consumer. Or at least made available to the consumer.
What I think some people are misunderstanding is that when they click on the "give publisher your info" button, they think the only thing they're giving out is literally their name, email and zip code, not understanding that for many people that's also providing a direct mapping to all kinds of other data, including their address and everything else available. Nasty companies like bluekai and rapleaf make these matches and data available for a price.
The only reason I will now (after many years) even consider subscriptions again is because Apple is providing a way for me to consume content without publishers and marketers getting my personal data, so I look at this as a net positive.
It's about time they started waking up. In marketing, problems are opportunities. And if getting the consumer to provide critical data is a key problem then find creative solutions. There are many creative ways to get those other 50% of consumers to provide data, even if only in small chunks compiled over time. Like running contests and promotions, special offers, etc. etc.
Why aren't they just happy to have my subscription? If I have to give them personal information, then they won't have my subscription. Bloodsuckers.
Demographics are very important. All they're asking for is very general info. Age group, sex, location, income, etc.... Its how they make money.
Not my money. But a big 'thank you' to the 50% of people who don't mind. Now the rest of us can enjoy the content without being tracked.
Not my money. But a big 'thank you' to the 50% of people who don't mind. Now the rest of us can enjoy the content without being tracked.
Then don't complain when there aren't anymore periodicals.