or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › iPad prompts changes to way magazines count circulation
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

iPad prompts changes to way magazines count circulation

post #1 of 32
Thread Starter 
Though it's yet to hit the market, Apple's iPad is already changing the rules of the games when it comes to how magazines quantify their readership and distribution, unlocking the potential for more lucrative advertising contracts with their sponsors.

According to the Associated Press, the Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC) -- a non-profit audit agency that assesses circulation, readership, and audience information for magazines and newspapers -- has altered its definition of a digital magazine to include the emerging class of tablet-style devices.

This means that magazine publishers can design their article spreads to be accessed by applications on the iPad and count paid digital subscriptions to those apps as part of their overall circulation, given that they include the same content and advertisements as their print-based counterparts.

Had the ABC not instated the change, publishers would only be able to count digital editions of their magazines that existed as exact facsimiles of their print editions, according to the AP, affording them little leeway in customization for gadgets like the iPad.

"Magazines need the change because they charge for ads based on the size of their so-called rate base, the circulation they guarantee to advertisers," the report explains. "By comparison, newspapers have had looser restrictions. Because they don't guarantee a rate base, they can count people who pay for access to their Web sites regardless of what ads run there."

There's one caveat, however: the ABC must approve each iPad app, and those for other tablet platforms, before its subscribers can be counted as part of the magazine's overall circulation.

A version of Conde Nast's Wired magazine is said to be among the first apps to receive such approval. The publishing firm is also reportedly working on similar apps for its GQ, The New Yorker, Vanity Fair and Glamour offerings.

Apple's iPad goes on sale April 3th in the United States.
post #2 of 32
Apple moves, the world changes. It's nice not to be marginal anymore.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #3 of 32
Shouldn't magazines simply consult Google regarding AdWords?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #4 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

Apple moves, the world changes. It's nice not to be marginal anymore.

I hear you!
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #5 of 32
The iPad's prompting a lot of things.

Once again, Apple is showing the way forward.
post #6 of 32
Many of the hit iphone apps developers already made their iPad versions...
they all going to be live soon!!!!
post #7 of 32
This is good news for my company since we have allot of fashion and advertising work in the mix. The budgets keep getting trimmed or projects are cut entirely, so with better numbers and increased circulation things could improve for the market overall.
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
post #8 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

Apple moves, the world changes. It's nice not to be marginal anymore.

Hate to tell you, but if you're an end-user, you're more marginal than you've ever been.
post #9 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelcruncher View Post

Hate to tell you, but if you're an end-user, you're more marginal than you've ever been.

Care to explain what you mean?
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #10 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Shouldn't magazines simply consult Google regarding AdWords?

No, because next to print ads, the online Google stuff is still like sitting at the kids table. Sure the toys are new and cool, but the grown ups are still in print and TV.

The business/stock world is much more excited by Google's efforts than advertisers. Money on traditional ads is hard to qualify, web based stuff is even harder, especially because the "ignore" rate is much higher. I've been involved with tangible ad campaigns, always get responses form the print/TV stuff, never from anyone by AdWord.

I was the one who pushed for AdWords as well, and I was warned and learned the hard way. I've received a lot of similar opinion from ad company reps. It's pretty obvious, even the clumsy or dim who click on an online ad, quickly realize the mistake and start to learn not to do that. Even when your desperate looking for something obscure in a search, break down and try one of Google's suggestions - it's never what you want, just spam. So people subconsciously just ignore that little area on the results page. Negative reinforcement is one of the most effective ways to change behavior. Google knows this too, that's why they want to tailor search results based on your past history, and put the ads in your search.

There a very real possibility that Google is severely over-valued as an advertising tool, maybe even as a company... at any moment they are just 5 little bookmark characters away from obscurity. 90% of their revenue is based on people going to their search page. I'm sure if I can see that, they are very aware of it, and looking for solutions.
post #11 of 32
Shock horror. Sarcasm.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #12 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelcruncher View Post

Hate to tell you, but if you're an end-user, you're more marginal than you've ever been.

Try telling that to my father...

He'd likely bop you over the head for being an elitist techno-snob
post #13 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by oxygenhose View Post

No, because next to print ads, the online Google stuff is still like sitting at the kids table. Sure the toys are new and cool, but the grown ups are still in print and TV.

The business/stock world is much more excited by Google's efforts than advertisers. Money on traditional ads is hard to qualify, web based stuff is even harder, especially because the "ignore" rate is much higher. I've been involved with tangible ad campaigns, always get responses form the print/TV stuff, never from anyone by AdWord.

I was the one who pushed for AdWords as well, and I was warned and learned the hard way. I've received a lot of similar opinion from ad company reps. It's pretty obvious, even the clumsy or dim who click on an online ad, quickly realize the mistake and start to learn not to do that. Even when your desperate looking for something obscure in a search, break down and try one of Google's suggestions - it's never what you want, just spam. So people subconsciously just ignore that little area on the results page. Negative reinforcement is one of the most effective ways to change behavior. Google knows this too, that's why they want to tailor search results based on your past history, and put the ads in your search.

There a very real possibility that Google is severely over-valued as an advertising tool, maybe even as a company... at any moment they are just 5 little bookmark characters away from obscurity. 90% of their revenue is based on people going to their search page. I'm sure if I can see that, they are very aware of it, and looking for solutions.

There is always the right tool for the job. Adwords are a great idea. Keep the search results away from financial motivation and put a few relevant paid links on the side. If your looking to buy something, the paid links are often more relevant then the (financially) unbiased links. As a consumer, I find the adwords a useful tool. That is always the challenge of advertising. You need to get the consumer to *want* to view your add. Much better idea then banner ads. I hope to see the end of banner ads one day. I don't think banners are very effective. That is just an effort by the traditional print industry to move to the web. Those banner ads are filtered out by my browser anyway.

If you buy an adword, you need to make sure it will function as a tool for the user. If you buy the wrong words or your product/service doesn't make sense then it isn't going to work. If it is a product/service that is a hard sell, an Adword will do you no good. Anybody looking at adwords already have a basic idea of what they want.
post #14 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by oxygenhose View Post

There a very real possibility that Google is severely over-valued as an advertising tool, maybe even as a company... at any moment they are just 5 little bookmark characters away from obscurity. 90% of their revenue is based on people going to their search page.

Yup, and nearly all of their revenue depends on the value of content they don't own.
post #15 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by oxygenhose View Post

There a very real possibility that Google is severely over-valued as an advertising tool, maybe even as a company... at any moment they are just 5 little bookmark characters away from obscurity. 90% of their revenue is based on people going to their search page. I'm sure if I can see that, they are very aware of it, and looking for solutions.

Google is going DOWN! We will KILL them!
post #16 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

Care to explain what you mean?

Ignore the trolls
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #17 of 32
Another thing causing magazines to jump into the iPad market whole-heartedly is the fact that the base demographics can afford a 499.99 e-reader / multimedia thingie. This isn't a snark - it's a very tasty (I'm talking tasty!) advertising group.

In short - they buy nice things. In long - ads for nice things generate more revenue than "End of days seeds".
post #18 of 32
Yeah, there the "pro" side that this will probably spur iPad adoption by magazines, but on my (now sold) Kindle magazines had no advertisements at all.
post #19 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorBenway View Post

Another thing causing magazines to jump into the iPad market whole-heartedly is the fact that the base demographics can afford a 499.99 e-reader / multimedia thingie. This isn't a snark - it's a very tasty (I'm talking tasty!) advertising group.

In short - they buy nice things. In long - ads for nice things generate more revenue than "End of days seeds".

I guess you're right. Funny thing is, I barely ever buy the paid version of an app so I doubt I'll be subscribing to any papers
MacBook Pro 17" Glossy 2.93GHz, iPad 64GB, iPhone 4 16GB, and a lot of other assorted goodies.

If you're a troll and you have been slain. Don't be a Zombie.
Reply
MacBook Pro 17" Glossy 2.93GHz, iPad 64GB, iPhone 4 16GB, and a lot of other assorted goodies.

If you're a troll and you have been slain. Don't be a Zombie.
Reply
post #20 of 32
Think about how much more relavant the ads will get on the iPad. They can pull data info right from the cloud, and have the story matched up with an ad on the fly. Advertisements in magazines used to need to be designed for a long time frame, since it takes a week to a month for a new edition to come out. Plus the magazines would be left on counters, and second and third tier readers would read the ads, which are not necessarily target audience.


With the iPad the ads can be updated daily if needed, they are guaranteed to reach target audience (since you are the one reading) and are not the same each time you read the story (so you can share the same story with another company 50/50 and pay half for the ad space. In many ways this is a win win, as long as the magazines realize all this and take advantage, not try to force people to keep reading the same way as print used to be.
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #21 of 32
I hope also that iPad finally kills flash!

Giovanni B. Saccone
Creativity is just connecting things (Steve Jobs)
> > > My wEb SiTe < < <

Reply

Giovanni B. Saccone
Creativity is just connecting things (Steve Jobs)
> > > My wEb SiTe < < <

Reply
post #22 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLuv View Post

Google is going DOWN! We will KILL them!

Leave me out of your sick fantasies please
post #23 of 32
This is a tremendously good indicator of the ultimate vitality of the iPad product line.

Critics of Apple's "closed" system (ibookstore) will also be silenced when such system results in exploding sales statistics of all sorts of electronic publications, especially in comparison to other competing platforms and formats.

The iPad's form factor, unique portability facility, and user interface will also spawn huge numbers of web browser-based publications.

There will also be new markets created such as for instruction manuals, how-to guides, corporate manuals, institutional guide books, self-guided tours, etc.

Daniel Swanson

Reply

Daniel Swanson

Reply
post #24 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by leey View Post

helps you to first look Apple's latest iPad: http://www.ifunia.com/ipad-column/index.html

That site is a joke. It shows a widescreen iPad with OSX. And here's what they say about our iPad:

"No Multi-Tasking

You're kidding, Apple. Right? The iPad operating system (OS) is the iPhone OS. The iPhone OS works well for a mobile device. For a full-size computer? Not so much. No multi-tasking means you need to close each program you're working on to open a new program. Then that program must be closed to use another. No hopping around from program to program -- you know, the way you really use a computer.

It's annoying enough on the iPhone, and numerous other smartphones do allow multi-tasking. For some reason, Apple decided it wasn't necessary for the iPad. Major error.

No Flash Support

No Flash in what is primarily a Web device? Shocking. Steve Jobs, during the announcement, kept talking about what a great Web-surfing product the iPad was. If so, why won't it support Flash, so you can watch videos and other Flash animations? Will the experience be so great when you open a Web page with a great, big empty box in the middle?

Yes, Flash can be a security hole. But using the Internet in any fashion brings certain security risks. To cut out such an important part of Web functionality for the sake of added security, in what is being pitched as a surfboard to the Web, is folly.

No Still Camera or Video

Again, this is a media-enabled computer, right? It's about "unleasing your inner creativity," "being who you really are", and other marketing pabulum. If that's so, why doesn't the iPad have a webcam or video camera built in? You can take a picture with a digital camera and upload it, but on most Windows laptops made today, cameras are part of the package -- and have been, for some time.

Video output is supported but only at 480p

I could have forgiven the limited screen size if the device offered true HD output. It doesn't. Again, why not? The new proprietary Apple processor seems powerful enough to power 720p video, yet it's restricted.

It may be to keep from cannibalizing sales of the Apple TV, a device that Apple is somehow still supporting and one that truly does output crystal-clear 720p video. And it ties to the iTunes video store, which is one reason I have and love mine--just like the iPad does. So the reasoning makes sense. But what about other apps the Apple TV doesn't support that the iPad does that would look good on your 46-inch LCD? It's a disappointment.

The aspect ratio isn't wide screen

When the iPhone was introduced, Steven Jobs specifically said it was a "wide-screen iPod." People had been clamoring for one for a while, so Apple delivered it as an iPhone component. Sure, it wasn't the actual 16:9 many wanted, but it was better than the standard definition 4:3 that the current crop of iPods was sporting.

And the latest versions of the Nano are also wide screen. Apple TV supports 16:9 natively, so why is the iPad--with 1,024x768 pixel resolution--stuck in the world of 4:3? Apple says it plays back HD video, which technically it does, but with down-converting. HD video at 720p, which is what the iPad supports, is 720x1,280. With a maximum width of 1024 pixels, the iPad really plays back true 720p--which uses 16:9, anything else isn't truly "720p"--video at 576x1,024. That's not much better than 480p.

There are LCD screens out there in the same relative size range as the iPad that are true HD-proportioned. Why didn't Apple use one of these?

No GPS

Apple does include A-GPS (Assisted GPS) via Wi-Fi and 3G in the 3G-powered model, but the size of the iPad means that a simple, low-powered real GPS receiver could have been built in to the device, yet wasn't.

That could lead one to assume that this isn't a device for those on the go. No, Apple seems to want to keep the MacBook for these people. The iPad, like the Apple TV, seems to be a device set to live in your house or apartment.

Indeed, when presenting the device, Jobs sat in an easy chair very similar to the ones many of us have in our living rooms. He crossed his legs and used them to prop up the device. If this device was meant to go on the road, it seems it would have had a GPS chip included, just like the iPhone.
post #25 of 32
According to the Associated Press, the Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC) -- a non-profit audit agency that assesses circulation, readership, and audience information for magazines and newspapers -- has altered its definition of a digital magazine to include the emerging class of tablet-style devices.

Where does it say ipad? Where do people come up with this stuff?
post #26 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Shock horror. Sarcasm.

Well I for one think Steve would put an immediate STOP to this CRAP!

IMAGINE someone (other than him of course) being in a position to APPROVE or REJECT something before it even gets SENT to Apples App & Content police. This is really going WAY too far. Steve madly calling his mergers and acquisitions people to check to see if this 'Audit Bureau of Circulations' or whatever stupid name they call themselves is an institution he could have silenced and/or purchased...
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #27 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheff View Post

Think about how much more relavant the ads will get on the iPad. They can pull data info right from the cloud, and have the story matched up with an ad on the fly. Advertisements in magazines used to need to be designed for a long time frame, since it takes a week to a month for a new edition to come out. Plus the magazines would be left on counters, and second and third tier readers would read the ads, which are not necessarily target audience.


With the iPad the ads can be updated daily if needed, they are guaranteed to reach target audience (since you are the one reading) and are not the same each time you read the story (so you can share the same story with another company 50/50 and pay half for the ad space. In many ways this is a win win, as long as the magazines realize all this and take advantage, not try to force people to keep reading the same way as print used to be.

The publishers could do this, but it might be more trouble than it's worth for them to go this route. They would need to ensure that they have multiple ads for the same space, and count the downloads of them to the device ensuring that each one is viewed the guaranteed quantity of views. What happens when that number is met? Do they leave a blank space if they don't have anything else to fill the space?

If they are updated (and counted) every time the reader views the magazine then how do you handle it when the viewer is not connected to the internet? Also, since magazines are often viewed past their circulation period how would you deal with it 6 months to a year out? I have a few magazines that are a few years old that I still pull out for reference, and yes sometimes I have pulled one out specifically to find an ad for a company for a product that I was interested in but did not purchase when the magazine came out.

I would imagine that they will sell a one page ad based on their circulation for the magazine and let the subject of the magazine determine the relevance of the ad to the market just as it does in print. The ad would travel with the download for viewing offline, and so that the publisher does not have to keep the ads on their server beyond a reasonable period of time.

For most magazines the subject of the periodical is a good indicator of the relevance of the advertise product to the market anyway. You probably would not advertise a Porsche or a Mercedes in Hot Rod magazine or an Elderbrock manifold and Headers in an issue of Gourmet or Good Housekeeping, even if the data in the "Cloud" thought it might be something you are interested in. Just think, I might have a subscription for Penthouse and one for Discovery Kids linked to my name I am the primary user of the iPad. My son opens up Discovery Kids and is confronted with an ad for adult toys. Sure this extreme scenario probably isn't likely, and was in a way meant as a bit of comic relief, but I think it does illustrate a potential problem with targeting ads based on the "Cloud" data, especially if the publisher has a number of periodicals for different demographics and "shares" the ads between them.
post #28 of 32
According to the Associated Press, the Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC) -- a non-profit audit agency that assesses circulation, readership, and audience information for magazines and newspapers -- has altered its definition of a digital magazine to include the emerging class of tablet-style devices.

Were does it say ipad?
post #29 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielSW View Post

Critics of Apple's "closed" system (ibookstore) .

What closed? Is the Kindle bookstore app going away? No. Is Stanza going away? No. What is this closed you speak of?

Let me break it down in easy to digest Tarzan speak for you.

App Store Closed.

Bookstores Open.

Pants are Good.

Grunt Snort.
post #30 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by esummers View Post

There is always the right tool for the job. Adwords are a great idea. Keep the search results away from financial motivation and put a few relevant paid links on the side. If your looking to buy something, the paid links are often more relevant then the (financially) unbiased links. As a consumer, I find the adwords a useful tool. That is always the challenge of advertising. You need to get the consumer to *want* to view your add. Much better idea then banner ads. I hope to see the end of banner ads one day. I don't think banners are very effective. That is just an effort by the traditional print industry to move to the web. Those banner ads are filtered out by my browser anyway.

If you buy an adword, you need to make sure it will function as a tool for the user. If you buy the wrong words or your product/service doesn't make sense then it isn't going to work. If it is a product/service that is a hard sell, an Adword will do you no good. Anybody looking at adwords already have a basic idea of what they want.

Well I think you're half right, people do click on the 'ads' they like. Usually those feature pretty pictures of pretty things and people - and here's the big, should be obvious conclusion - ads that are just a link, or a couple of words do not remotely compare or attract the eyeballs or get the clicks. Like banner ads before, people using that Pavlovian negative reinforcement, have by and large learned to ignore them.

Since I've waste money on both Google AdWords and the traditional print/TV stuff, there's not even a question which is more effective. It's my belief, from direct experience, that Google AdWords' effectiveness is hyped to help their company stock and sell the service. There's also the very real danger that once you use a AdWord, Google will go sell all that marketing data to your competition. If you're a small retailer, and somehow selling something that Target does, good luck. Your advertising dollars would go a lot further towards almost any other marketing campaign.
post #31 of 32
Reading this article makes me think of my stand again. I will not buy a Application that has Adds in it. I even find it criminal that in regular magazine I used to pay a subscription to when it was filled to the brim in adds. I dropped said magazine because of the wall to wall adds and sorely lacking articles. So these iPad magazines better have more substance in them if they expect me to buy them.

Mac Pro Dual 2.8 Quad (2nd gen), 14G Ram, Two DVD-RW Drives, OS X 10.9
Mac Book Pro Core 2 Duo 2.16Ghz, SuperDrive, ATI X1600, 2GB RAM, OS X 10.7
1TB Time Capsule

Reply

Mac Pro Dual 2.8 Quad (2nd gen), 14G Ram, Two DVD-RW Drives, OS X 10.9
Mac Book Pro Core 2 Duo 2.16Ghz, SuperDrive, ATI X1600, 2GB RAM, OS X 10.7
1TB Time Capsule

Reply
post #32 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Apple's iPad goes on sale April 3th in the United States.

What was wrong with "3rd"?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › iPad prompts changes to way magazines count circulation