or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Publishers skeptical of Apple iPad business model
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Publishers skeptical of Apple iPad business model - Page 2

post #41 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlvphoto View Post

Unlike book publishers, magazine and news paper publishers make the bulk of their money from advertising revenue. The cost at the news stand, or subscription costs, are there to cover the cost of dead trees and the costs associated with delivery of the physical product.

The way advertising pricing is computed for a specific publication is based on subscriber numbers, news stand sales numbers, the base demographics of the geographic locations of a subscriber base and the much more specific demographic information provided by subscribers and others who fill out survey cards.

There are many other sources of information that goes into the aggregate statistical universe used to justify to advertisers why they would benefit from purchasing an advert in a specific publication for a specified price.

That's how it works in the print industry. The information about readership flows back to the publishers in several ways.

Now, the electronic content delivery method comes along and removes the cost of dead trees and physical delivery of the publication. It gets replaced with any of several methods of delivery.

A publisher can build and maintain their own delivery mechanism, such as what Baen Books did. That allows them to become a conduit to their readers and even offer that service to other publishers, ie.. Tor, Del Rey, Nightshade, etc..

Most of the costs for the self distribution method are up front capital costs associated with the initial buildout of the web site, the work flow for content conversion, and management issues involved in getting all of your content creators into the system and working efficiently towards a new delivery mechanism.

A second delivery conduit is for a publisher to outsource electronic distribution to someone like Apple, Amazon or B&N in much the same way they outsource single issue sales to brick and mortar stores. They sell to the stores at a discount off the cover price, the stores then sell for some percentage markup over that, usually up to cover price. In this method, the publisher preps the electronic issue in the format required by the outsourced distributor and provides the digital copy to them. This is, essentially, identical to the way books are provided to the companies that actually print the dead tree versions.

The Agency model that has been discussed recently, and apparently is being adopted by both Apple and Amazon, removes the frontloaded costs of purchasing copies of a publication at discount from a distributor who delivers those copies to a store front for sale to customers. Since there is no appreciable cost to the retailers (ie.. Amazon, Apple, B&N) for each copy until that copy is sold to the reader, the original wholesaler model doesn't work. For this reason, the Agency model is preferable. There are quite a few articles that go into great detail about the Agency model out there. Check Scalzi's blog for one of the better ones.

All that being said, the magazine and news paper industry rely on advertising within the publication for most of their revenue. The business model for electronic readers for those kinds of publications in no way changes that primary source of revenue, nor does it change the conduits for demographic information that revenue source relies upon.

There is a huge potential in e-readers to allow an extremely granular level of user profiling, demographic information, and other information that can be useful for advertisers, content creators, interface designers, and everyone else involved in the creation of the publications.

This is, ultimately, something that will have to be negotiated between the publishers and the *readers*, not the hardware manufacturers. Just as with current business models, if the publisher wants demographic information more specific than X sales in Y geographic region, they'll need to go to the readers themselves for it.

Saying that Apple is denying them that information is FUD of the worst sort and does nothing more than alienate the very readers they want to get that information from.

-- Scott

great explanation of how all this works.. Thanks!!

i know some magazine formats take advantage of multiple viewing.. doctors offices, coffee table magazines.. national geographic.. etc etc. how much do advertisers count on this kind of viewership versus a single user viewership of their ads? for example, wouldn't it be better to allow a given magazine to be passed around up to X number of times so that others who would not subscribe anyway see their ads too - just like the doctors office, friends coffee table etc etc kinds of mags already offer.. dumb question maybe but it seems to me some magazines don't get read and tossed.. they stay around and are viewed several or many times by more than one person..
post #42 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelist View Post

I commend Apple for standing up for OUR RIGHTS! Let the "Publishers" establish their own relationship and extract their information, marketing plans, data, etc AFTER the individual subscribes via the iTunes Store. At that point, it is a personal decision between the individual and the publisher. Apple should in no way give out information about its own individual database!

Besides, just how how "marketing information" does a magazine publisher get when I buy a magazine off the rack?

Give me an incentive to share my demographic data with you and I might. Otherwise...
post #43 of 98
At the introduction of the Kindle, I vowed to never again buy a new book in printed form (e-book only from now on). The introduction of the iPad cemented the decision, and anyone who has actually priced out new books sees the logic in going e-book only. The publishers will eventually move to an e-only stance once they have been divested of their legacy printing presses and distribution networks.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #44 of 98
Dear Publishers ... It's 2010.

That is all.
post #45 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

And just what percentage of the price goes towards printing and distribution now? Is Apple's 30% cut that unreasonable compared to that?

to be honest I don't think it's the percent that bugs them. It's the idea of only getting paid when someone plays which means that their inflow is variable and unpredictable. Publishers, Networks etc don't like that game. It makes them nervous.

Plus being cut out of any demo info about who is buying what. Which frankly I can't see them needing outside of spamming and such and the last thing we need is more ads. So anything that improves that game by making it my choice, not some 3rd party, of what information and how much someone gets is great to me.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #46 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius View Post

Oops! You already gave your consent to them. Look at the Privacy Policy:

http://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/

"There are also times when it may be advantageous for Apple to make certain personal information about you available to companies that Apple has a strategic relationship with or that perform work for Apple to provide products and services to you"


"...times when it may be advantageous for Apple"... includes any time someone will pay them for your private information.

Do you imagine that Apple would not throw you under the bridge to make a buck? Do you imagine that iSteve is a good person? Do you think that Apple exists for any reason other than to extract money from you, any way it can?

Please.

You are misunderstanding and mischaracterizing Apple's privacy policy! The Section titled "When we disclose your information" begins with the paragraph,

"Apple takes your privacy very seriously. Apple does not sell or rent your contact information to other marketers."

Apple makes money by focusing on the end-user experience. They don't treat their customers well because they are saints -- they treat their customers well because that's how they make their money! Selling contact information would be stupid, because it would alienate their customers and they would end up making less money.
post #47 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius View Post

Oops! You already gave your consent to them. Look at the Privacy Policy:

http://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/

"There are also times when it may be advantageous for Apple to make certain personal information about you available to companies that Apple has a strategic relationship with or that perform work for Apple to provide products and services to you"


"...times when it may be advantageous for Apple"... includes any time someone will pay them for your private information.

Do you imagine that Apple would not throw you under the bridge to make a buck? Do you imagine that iSteve is a good person? Do you think that Apple exists for any reason other than to extract money from you, any way it can?

Please.

Bingo!

Every company has their own "privacy policy" that suits their marketing plan to a "T". The publishers may be bankrupt in a sense of the mature electronic age but they do provide premium content with high expenses. Apple and publishers will have to have to have some compromise in terms of market data and costs charged. I am surprised that Apple does not provide an iTunes "micro-payment" price to whoever partners on content.

Steve J can't sell hardware, (shiny ball) without a constant media content, either electronic paper, videos, etc. Good business's will get the better angels in there to create the bridge here.



www.answersforapple.com
post #48 of 98
Good for apple not sharing customer data Privacy is very important.

They will all come around like all the music labels.
post #49 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

The main ABC network itself isn't cable though.

I can see it being done for cable/sat subscribers but I don't go that way.

Ever heard of the "Nielsen Ratings"?

That's how the TV industry finds out how many people are watching ABC, ESPN, and now even using TiVo.

The Wikipedia has a nice article on it. Along with focus groups, the Nielsen Ratings dictate what gets shown on TV.

Right now, a newspaper or magazine collects data on its subscribers, mainly by looking at the postal codes of it's subscribers, through which they can infer a lot about demographics, which they then use to sell advertising space. There are also frequent questionnaires sent out to subscribers, often paired with a contest or renewal info or getting online content when they ask what field of work you're in, what other magazines you read, what your favourite websites are, etc. etc.

If they go from that model when they know the age/location/salary/ethnic group of their subscribers to Apple just telling them "50000 subscriptions, here's your cheque for 500000 dollars, then they can't really say any specific details to their advertisers, who require that information to make their choices. And, I probably don't need to remind you that in newspaper and magazine industry, about 90% of the gross revenue comes from advertising....
post #50 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxmann View Post

great explanation of how all this works.. Thanks!!

i know some magazine formats take advantage of multiple viewing.. doctors offices, coffee table magazines.. national geographic.. etc etc. how much do advertisers count on this kind of viewership versus a single user viewership of their ads? for example, wouldn't it be better to allow a given magazine to be passed around up to X number of times so that others who would not subscribe anyway see their ads too - just like the doctors office, friends coffee table etc etc kinds of mags already offer.. dumb question maybe but it seems to me some magazines don't get read and tossed.. they stay around and are viewed several or many times by more than one person..

The multi-reader stats are built into the demographics gathered by examining the business vs consumer purchasing, then looking at the demographics of either businesses in that area or specific survey results for that type of business.

The sharing of physical items vs. electronic items is a discussion best carried on under the topic of scarce goods vs. infinite goods and the nature of ownership and the impact on business models. It's a bit off topic for this forum.

-- Scott
post #51 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

Ever heard of the "Nielsen Ratings"?

Yeah but people volunteer their information to Nielson. The television networks are not able to collect it just because you've watched their program.


Quote:
And, I probably don't need to remind you that in newspaper and magazine industry, about 90% of the gross revenue comes from advertising....

This is the crux of the problem. That revenue is no longer viable to cover operating expense and they need a new business model.
post #52 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlvphoto View Post

Unlike book publishers, magazine and news paper publishers make the bulk of their money from advertising revenue. The cost at the news stand, or subscription costs, are there to cover the cost of dead trees and the costs associated with delivery of the physical product.

...

Yours is the best post yet in this thread. What most people don't get is that we are not the customers for ad-supported newspapers and magazines. Advertisers are the customers. We are the product.

The publishers are demanding from Apple information that they can't get any other way. The iBookstore will be much more like a newsstand than a subscription service. The publisher has no idea who purchased the magazine or newspaper picked from the rack in a convenience store or newsstand. Many magazines and newspapers are available exclusively on the rack. In the case of a publication delivered to a subscriber, the only verified information available to the publication is the subscriber's address. The publication may use demographic models that predict the socioeconomic circumstances of people in the area. These models are fairly accurate. However, they cannot give specific information about individuals.

There are publications that have specific information about their subscribers. They fall into two categories:
  • The publications offered by professional organizations their membership have access to the information provided by the members.
  • Publications offered to professionals at "professional courtesy" prices or free of charge require the subscriber to complete an application for the price reduction.
In each case, there is consideration in exchange for the private information. However, these publishers fighting Apple offer no consideration for us to surrender our information.

Ad-supported publications must recognize that we live in a new day. They need to find a new business model.
post #53 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius View Post

Oops! You already gave your consent to them. Look at the Privacy Policy:

http://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/

"There are also times when it may be advantageous for Apple to make certain personal information about you available to companies that Apple has a strategic relationship with or that perform work for Apple to provide products and services to you"


"...times when it may be advantageous for Apple"... includes any time someone will pay them for your private information.

Do you imagine that Apple would not throw you under the bridge to make a buck? Do you imagine that iSteve is a good person? Do you think that Apple exists for any reason other than to extract money from you, any way it can?

Please.

Stop spouting nonsense. Good companies don't sell info on their customers just because someone might pay them a buck for it.

You may have a grudge against Steve Jobs, but you should take that elsewhere.

Add: Post #46 (NormM also points this out, better than I did).
post #54 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by macgold55 View Post

Bingo!

Every company has their own "privacy policy" that suits their marketing plan to a "T". The publishers may be bankrupt in a sense of the mature electronic age but they do provide premium content with high expenses. Apple and publishers will have to have to have some compromise in terms of market data and costs charged. I am surprised that Apple does not provide an iTunes "micro-payment" price to whoever partners on content.

Steve J can't sell hardware, (shiny ball) without a constant media content, either electronic paper, videos, etc. Good business's will get the better angels in there to create the bridge here.



www.answersforapple.com

"Bingo" what? You and iGenius should become more informed.
post #55 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelist View Post

I commend Apple for standing up for OUR RIGHTS! Let the "Publishers" establish their own relationship and extract their information, marketing plans, data, etc AFTER the individual subscribes via the iTunes Store. At that point, it is a personal decision between the individual and the publisher. Apple should in no way give out information about its own individual database!

The problem is that Apple's model prevents that from happening, because it puts a wall between the consumer of the publication and the publisher. Normally, the publisher can communicate with the subscriber, but this hides the subscriber from the publisher.

They won't be able to adjust their Ad rates properly, because they won't be able to tell the advertisers who is reading the publication. That's VERY important. Then how will they make a profit? Subscription payments don't pay for more than a fraction of a publication's cost.

In other words, the publisher has no idea as to who the subscribers are.

Even basic information such as which subscribers are not renewing are not available. Publishers often send out cards at reduced rates to subscribers if they don't renew on time. That can't happen here. If a subscriber has subscribed for years, and now doesn't, the publisher wants to know that. It matters to them if long time subscribers are not renewing. It's different than it is for someone who just subscribed for one year and quit. Or if someone was given a gift subscription. This helps publishers adjust the editorial content.

They won't see any of that info now. All they will see is subscription numbers. The who and why will be totally lost to them.

It's easy for you to say they should do this on their own, but they won't be able to.
post #56 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Your comparison is flawed. Please give me an example of how ABC knows who is watching, outside of surveys such as Nielsen. They don't have subscriber or audience member specific information like that. For that matter, Panasonic doesn't have any idea. I don't see how the publisher has earned the right to information that isn't necessary to carry out the transaction. They sold a product, once the money and product has changed hands, that's it as far as I'm concerned. If people want to fill out surveys or log into the publisher's web site, that's fine.

His argument is flawed as far as Tv goes, because they do depend on outside organizations, as they have no direct avenue to their consumers. Through, the pay channels do that that avenue.

But as far as publications go, they all have that access to their subscribers, and they need it.
post #57 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishstick_kitty View Post

I agree with the original poster, publishers should not have access to my information. And plenty of people get that model today when they buy newspapers from newsstands or grocery stores.

Newspaper stand sales, yes. but most sales of magazines are through subscriptions, and there, they have that info. Much newspaper sales are through subscription as well, and they have the info there too.
post #58 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post

Not sure I'm picking up on what you may be implying. Are you suggesting that digital sales (which have perhaps surpassed CD's in sales) is the reason why EMI is failing? Is there something unique about EMI that I'm not aware of? Are they not making their catalog available for digital download?

Digital sales are still no more than about 20% of CD sales numbers.
post #59 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Is there a reason for this? Bad management, recession, or is there a direct link to going digital and DRM-free that the problem?

Bad management. When present management took over, they alienated their major stars, and a number have left. There are other reasons that put management up there. But the company, as the smallest of the majors, hadn't had the cash to collect the top musicians it needed to compete.

And the company has the largest digital sales by percentage of its total sales of all the majors. Digital sales aren't going to help a company.
post #60 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post

You've made the point I think I was aiming for, only much better!

Had Apple not come along and sorted out a sensible model for digital downloads, illegal downloads were going to do untold harm to the music publishers. In that sense, I think iTunes saved their industry, as everything they were doing themselves was nothing short of a joke.

Obviously they also don't help themselves by publishing so much teeny pop crap!!!

The biggest buyer of music is a thirteen year old girl.
post #61 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrandersoniii View Post

The newspaper and magazine NEEDS a new model, if it is to survive. And frankly, I hate newsprint ink on my fingers.

Ink on the fingers does suck... but you're missing the biggest draw back to print media - the news and information is dated before you read it.

Mags & papers need to use iPad so they can provide timely information. Until then, I'll continue to check the internet for the latest news and info.
post #62 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Note that is projected for 2010. There appears to be evidence yet that digital distribution has actually overtaken CD sales.

Where and what is that evidence?

In 2009, digital sales slowed down.
post #63 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The problem is that Apple's model prevents that from happening, because it puts a wall between the consumer of the publication and the publisher. Normally, the publisher can communicate with the subscriber, but this hides the subscriber from the publisher.

They won't be able to adjust their Ad rates properly, because they won't be able to tell the advertisers who is reading the publication. That's VERY important. Then how will they make a profit? Subscription payments don't pay for more than a fraction of a publication's cost.

In other words, the publisher has no idea as to who the subscribers are.

Even basic information such as which subscribers are not renewing are not available. Publishers often send out cards at reduced rates to subscribers if they don't renew on time. That can't happen here. If a subscriber has subscribed for years, and now doesn't, the publisher wants to know that. It matters to them if long time subscribers are not renewing. It's different than it is for someone who just subscribed for one year and quit. Or if someone was given a gift subscription. This helps publishers adjust the editorial content.

They won't see any of that info now. All they will see is subscription numbers. The who and why will be totally lost to them.

It's easy for you to say they should do this on their own, but they won't be able to.

The entire subscription model is changing. The behavioral psychology of the readership is going to change. The medium changes that. The models used by periodic content producers on the web are the models that need to be adapted for electronic periodicals.

Subscriber information can still be obtained in other ways. A new line added to the electronic equivalent of a survey card, for instance.

The current marketing models and calculations will have to change. Those who successfully adapt to this change and solve the, at times difficult, problems confronting the shift from paper to electrons will be the ones still standing when the dust settles.
post #64 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Me View Post

Yours is the best post yet in this thread. What most people don't get is that we are not the customers for ad-supported newspapers and magazines. Advertisers are the customers. We are the product.

The publishers are demanding from Apple information that they can't get any other way. The iBookstore will be much more like a newsstand than a subscription service. The publisher has no idea who purchased the magazine or newspaper picked from the rack in a convenience store or newsstand. Many magazines and newspapers are available exclusively on the rack. In the case of a publication delivered to a subscriber, the only verified information available to the publication is the subscriber's address. The publication may use demographic models that predict the socioeconomic circumstances of people in the area. These models are fairly accurate. However, they cannot give specific information about individuals.

There are publications that have specific information about their subscribers. They fall into two categories:
  • The publications offered by professional organizations their membership have access to the information provided by the members.
  • Publications offered to professionals at "professional courtesy" prices or free of charge require the subscriber to complete an application for the price reduction.
In each case, there is consideration in exchange for the private information. However, these publishers fighting Apple offer no consideration for us to surrender our information.

Ad-supported publications must recognize that we live in a new day. They need to find a new business model.


Those professional publications will still be able to get that same information. Send your readers to a website to enter the requisite information to receive a 'gift' subscription or however Apple, et al.. decide to handle that.

The same goes for any other publication whose primary ad models require that kind of detailed demographics.

-- Scott
post #65 of 98
Being involved in several national magazines, I do see how publishers deem the need for access to the people purchasing their product.

Contrary to what the average consumer may think, a publication is considered a catalyst for one thing and one thing only, advertising revenue. Sure, articles and great content are key to a great magazine... but a subscription barely pays for a magazines total overhead. it's advertising that keeps the magazine going. The more subscriptions you have only means more circulation, which once again, goes back to advertising... Advertisers like circulation.

Do you really think that the unbelievable introductory subscription price of $14.99/12 issues of Sports Illustrated really makes the publishers anything? It barely covers 3 issues going out the door. However, 1 more number to overall circulation helps drive ad revenue. guaranteed.

That being said, it's very hard for a publisher to gain existing and new advertising dollars if they cannot come back to the advertiser and tell them who the audience is that reads the publication. As much as I hate seeing my personal information shared with the next, I believe that if a person does subscribe to a particular magazine, my information should be shared with the publisher.

Publishers also depend on 3rd party advertising opportunities as well. Let's say Axe launches a new body spray and aside from placing an ad in said magazine, they also want to personally touch more of their audience with a sample. Without knowing who is purchasing digital copies, publishers can't very well sell Axe the opportunity to market more directly with bulk mail and eblasts. Once again... depending on who you ask, this can be considered a great thing or a bad thing. Personally, I'm okay with marketing to me direct... it's how I find out whats new and whats cool. I enjoy knowing deals.

Without these opportunities, regardless of how many digital copies publishing companies sell... it could very well effect what a magazine is.Sure, we rule out paper and cost of print, but theres still employees, r&d, planning, digital media and content production, edits, revisions, etc. etc. etc. And with digital magazines comes a whole new wave of media rich magazines with video and sound... live streams. Way more expensive than paper and ink.

And as far as the ibook store being compared to a news stand rack... I don't know if i buy that. The cost of the ibook store subscriptions will more than likely be far less than a physical subscription. Ever see a news stand price? It's godly inflated to give two incentives for the publishers - a reason to gain a subscription, and a reason to gain a circulation head. Advertising. Advertising. Advertising.

Publishers still don't make money off of news stand price. Eventually, the person purchasing magazines off the news stand turn into a subscriber. And more than likely Apple will push ibook store subscriptions. So what does that mean? Subscribers to your magazine... without knowing who they are.. and not being able to market to them outside of the magazine.

I know this model doesnt fit every type of publisher out there.... but for a publisher heavy with magazines and ad related content, its the reality.

my two cents.
post #66 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Where and what is that evidence?

In 2009, digital sales slowed down.

My bad, meant to write "no evidence" as contextualized by my first sentence that it was just someone's projection of when it will occur.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #67 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlvphoto View Post

The entire subscription model is changing. The behavioral psychology of the readership is going to change. The medium changes that. The models used by periodic content producers on the web are the models that need to be adapted for electronic periodicals.

Subscriber information can still be obtained in other ways. A new line added to the electronic equivalent of a survey card, for instance.

The current marketing models and calculations will have to change. Those who successfully adapt to this change and solve the, at times difficult, problems confronting the shift from paper to electrons will be the ones still standing when the dust settles.

Yes, I do read in some posts wishful beliefs that it's changing. But it isn't so simple.

These models don't change all at once. There will be years, decades even, when both models will exist side by side. Both will have to make a profit.

It's easy to talk about someone else's business, and say what's good for them when you don't have an interest (financial) in it. It's like the talking heads on Tv who are always criticizing and making impractical suggestions, but who have no responsibilities to carry them out, and take responsibility when they fail.

The magazine industry has been around for quite a long time. During recessions, sales always suffer, and the past two and a half years has been worse than most. During the depression, many went out of business as well, but it sprung back later. While these tablets will make an impression on their model, it will take a long time before people switch over in large numbers.

It has to be understood that these devices are not only much bigger than an iPod, but are also much more expensive as well. Sales of them will be restricted when compared to digital music players. Will Apple ever sell 50 million a year? Perhaps at some time in the future, after the price drops, and they do more. But it will take years for those sales to materialize. Meanwhile, most people will still subscribe, a smaller number will buy from the news stand or magazine shop, and a smaller number yet will get it electronically.

But in order to convince the publishers they should go electronic, they must be given the same chance to interact with their customer. That doesn't mean an invidious amount of personal information. It often just needs to be what I mentioned on my other posts. Sometimes they'll want more, and they could embed a form into the publication itself. But they would have to be given a means by which they could reward the customer for answering as they often do now. We don't as yet know if that will be possible.
post #68 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by josephwinters View Post

Being involved in several national magazines, I do see how publishers deem the need for access to the people purchasing their product.

Contrary to what the average consumer may think, a publication is considered a catalyst for one thing and one thing only, advertising revenue. Sure, articles and great content are key to a great magazine... but a subscription barely pays for a magazines total overhead. it's advertising that keeps the magazine going. The more subscriptions you have only means more circulation, which once again, goes back to advertising... Advertisers like circulation.

Do you really think that the unbelievable introductory subscription price of $14.99/12 issues of Sports Illustrated really makes the publishers anything? It barely covers 3 issues going out the door. However, 1 more number to overall circulation helps drive ad revenue. guaranteed.

That being said, it's very hard for a publisher to gain existing and new advertising dollars if they cannot come back to the advertiser and tell them who the audience is that reads the publication. As much as I hate seeing my personal information shared with the next, I believe that if a person does subscribe to a particular magazine, my information should be shared with the publisher.

Publishers also depend on 3rd party advertising opportunities as well. Let's say Axe launches a new body spray and aside from placing an ad in said magazine, they also want to personally touch more of their audience with a sample. Without knowing who is purchasing digital copies, publishers can't very well sell Axe the opportunity to market more directly with bulk mail and eblasts. Once again... depending on who you ask, this can be considered a great thing or a bad thing. Personally, I'm okay with marketing to me direct... it's how I find out whats new and whats cool. I enjoy knowing deals.

Without these opportunities, regardless of how many digital copies publishing companies sell... it could very well effect what a magazine is.Sure, we rule out paper and cost of print, but theres still employees, r&d, planning, digital media and content production, edits, revisions, etc. etc. etc. And with digital magazines comes a whole new wave of media rich magazines with video and sound... live streams. Way more expensive than paper and ink.

And as far as the ibook store being compared to a news stand rack... I don't know if i buy that. The cost of the ibook store subscriptions will more than likely be far less than a physical subscription. Ever see a news stand price? It's godly inflated to give two incentives for the publishers - a reason to gain a subscription, and a reason to gain a circulation head. Advertising. Advertising. Advertising.

Publishers still don't make money off of news stand price. Eventually, the person purchasing magazines off the news stand turn into a subscriber. And more than likely Apple will push ibook store subscriptions. So what does that mean? Subscribers to your magazine... without knowing who they are.. and not being able to market to them outside of the magazine.

I know this model doesnt fit every type of publisher out there.... but for a publisher heavy with magazines and ad related content, its the reality.

my two cents.

Agreed. Consumers don't understand how business works. It's good you brought up how video and other enhancements will raise the cost of the publication, because that's very true.

Unfortunately, consumers still think "cheaper, cheaper", as though that covers all topics of importance. According to that way of thinking, we're ALWAYS being ripped off. I just wonder how many of them don't need to work for a living, because surely, their salaries are inflated as their companies are obviously ripping us off as well, to help pay for it.

People don't seem to understand how Ad dollars pay for everything.
post #69 of 98
Check out the end of the video

Rupert Murdoch talks about offering the WSJ as part of a "bundle" of newspapers on the iPad for $5-6/week.

http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommo...JjOTM1YTlmYzI=
post #70 of 98
[CENTER]It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out... Greed vs Customer

Until then, I'll continue enjoying my magazines, etc via Zinio's excellent digital distribution system.

DaHarder loyal Zinio subscriber since 2004
[/CENTER]
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #71 of 98
This is a pretty HUGE change for publishers. obviously there will be some concerns. They need to see proof that the business model is viable.
post #72 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Check out the end of the video

Rupert Murdoch talks about offering the WSJ as part of a "bundle" of newspapers on the iPad for $5-6/week.

http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommo...JjOTM1YTlmYzI=

That was very interesting. Even though I'm not a fan of his, as the WSJ has moved further to the right since he's owned it, we do still subscribe.

Right now, the subscription is just $99 for the year, after we've paid about $550 a year over the years. Our NY Times subscription including the Sunday edition is also about $550 a year.

It will be interesting to see if the $99 price is a one time thing, which it likely is. If not, I may not re-subscribe. But if he follows through with what he mentioned, depending on what is being offered, I may go with that. If the Times also offered an iPad subscription, and it too was lower, I'd go with that one as well.

The question here is how long will the paper exist on the device? A day, a week, a month, forever?

It's the same question with magazine subscriptions. Will we be able to back up and keep all copies, or do they go away after a time?
post #73 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Rupert Murdoch talks about offering the WSJ as part of a "bundle" of newspapers on the iPad for $5-6/week.

I'd go for that.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #74 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post

You've made the point I think I was aiming for, only much better!

Had Apple not come along and sorted out a sensible model for digital downloads, illegal downloads were going to do untold harm to the music publishers. In that sense, I think iTunes saved their industry, as everything they were doing themselves was nothing short of a joke.

Obviously they also don't help themselves by publishing so much teeny pop crap!!!

I agree!
post #75 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Where and what is that evidence?

In 2009, digital sales slowed down.

If you read magazines and newspapers, then you know that ad pages have been down for a lot longer than that. Look at the average newspaper. Its pages are geometrically smaller and there are fewer of them. Magazines? Geometrically smaller pages and fewer of them.

Long story short--whatever problems plague digital downloads face, thin layers of dead trees have it ever so much worse.
post #76 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Your comparison is flawed. Please give me an example of how ABC knows who is watching, outside of surveys such as Nielsen. They don't have subscriber or audience member specific information like that. For that matter, Panasonic doesn't have any idea. I don't see how the publisher has earned the right to information that isn't necessary to carry out the transaction. They sold a product, once the money and product has changed hands, that's it as far as I'm concerned. If people want to fill out surveys or log into the publisher's web site, that's fine.

Thanks Jeff! You took the words right outta my...uh...keyboard Seriously, the point being made is that Apple has no right nor obligation to divulge any info it may have about iTunes and/or iPad users. The publishers have no rights to user info UNLESS that info and thus the inherent right to use same is given expressedly by the user. Buying a book via iTunes or iBook Store (really anywhere for that matter) does not obligate the user to divest his rights nor give any right of access to the publisher. Apple is right on in this case!
post #77 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius View Post

Oops! You already gave your consent to them. Look at the Privacy Policy:

http://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/

"There are also times when it may be advantageous for Apple to make certain personal information about you available to companies that Apple has a strategic relationship with or that perform work for Apple to provide products and services to you"


"...times when it may be advantageous for Apple"... includes any time someone will pay them for your private information.

Do you imagine that Apple would not throw you under the bridge to make a buck? Do you imagine that iSteve is a good person? Do you think that Apple exists for any reason other than to extract money from you, any way it can?

Please.

Actually, the policy specifically states that they will not provide your information to other marketers.

Strategic partners doesn't include providers of content. It does, however, include Google, which pisses me off.
post #78 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius View Post

Are you certain that Apple would not sell that info to the publisher? ISTM that Apple will have something of value, and would be foolish not to sell it.

Apple is no different from any other multi-national corporation.

Apple does not sell or rent your info to other marketing companies.
From the Apple privacy page:

"When we disclose your information

Apple takes your privacy very seriously. Apple does not sell or rent your contact information to other marketers."
post #79 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Digital sales are still no more than about 20% of CD sales numbers.

In dollar terms or in unit terms? If the latter, how are single tracks compared with CDs?
post #80 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerARSgm View Post

Ink on the fingers does suck... but you're missing the biggest draw back to print media - the news and information is dated before you read it.

I agree. Nowadays, printed newspapers give you yesterday's news. Magazines give you info from even longer ago.

I just watched Pirates of Silicon Valley, and it was almost comical when Woz came in with a magazine and claimed to have the latest scoop.

Times change. I can't imagine the days before sattelites, when it took days or weeks for news to arrive.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Publishers skeptical of Apple iPad business model