or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Advertisers quick to invest money in new iPad publications
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Advertisers quick to invest money in new iPad publications

post #1 of 33
Thread Starter 
While tech pundits have stoked fear, uncertainty and doubt about the prospects for Apple's upcoming iPad, major advertisers are confident about investing in significant new sponsorships of high profile iPad publications.

A new report by the New York Times contrasts the cautious approach advertisers took to the Internet and mobile phones with the liberal spending they're now pouring into digital iPad versions of existing print publications.

"FedEx has bought advertising space on the iPad applications from Reuters, The Wall Street Journal and Newsweek. Chase Sapphire, a credit card for the high-end market, has bought out The New York Timess iPad advertising units for 60 days after the introduction," the report stated.

"Advertisers including Unilever, Toyota Motor, Korean Air and Fidelity have booked space on Times iPad application. In a draft press release, The Journal said a subscription to its app would cost $17.99 a month, and the first advertisers included Capital One, Buick, Oracle, iShares and FedEx."

Advertisers are spending between $75,000 to $300,000 for a few months of ad space in print publisher's iPad apps, according to Phuc Truong, the managing director of Mobext U.S.

Advertisers are believed to trying to associate themselves with the excitement Apple has created around the iPad. The Times cited Alisa Bowen, senior vice president and head of consumer publishing at Thomson Reuters, as saying, "There is an appetite to be associated with the inevitable buzz the buzz around the iPad has been so long-lived."

Measuring iPad ads

Nobody yet knows how consumers will respond to the iPad and to its new paid-content model, which will allow publishers to both charge per app and also charge subscription fees, similar to a physical newspaper or magazine. The iPad will present a new type of content somewhere between traditional print, which charges advertisers a flat fee based on subscribers, and the web, which typically charges advertisers very little per ad impression, but significantly more when readers click on an ad.

Mark Ford, president of the Time Inc. News Group, which will be publishing a iPad version of Time in April, as well as an iPad edition of Sports Illustrated in June, explained to the Times, "Weve got to figure out what the measurements are [for success in iPad advertising]. Its not how you measure print, its not, certainly, how you measure digital. Its going to be something different.

Fran Pessagno, who is working on the FedEx iPad ad contract for Omnicom Media Group, told the Times he would be looking for firm results in iPad ads. "With everything we do, were just going to have to test it and see whether or not it actually results in new account signups, he said, referring to accounts created with FedEx. Until anything goes to market, its always viewed through the lens of, its short term.

No Flash on iPad

Another issue in front of advertisers lining up to get in on iPad buzz is that they can't use their existing web ad collateral built using Adobe Flash, because Apple has rejected the use of any Flash runtime for the iPad. "So advertisers must find other ways to enlivening [sic] their ads," the Times article said. "People, for instance, is using the Adobe program InDesign to create slide shows, videos and animation."

The iPad edition of People is expected to be ready by early August. Fran Hauser, the president of digital for the Time Inc. Style and Entertainment Group, which includes People, told the Times Its a little more work for them, and for us, too, said.

Time Inc. News Group's Ford added that while advertiser interest had been intense, were all learning. Its a moving target."
post #2 of 33
Quote:
Advertisers quick to invest money in new iPad publications

Hope they didn't invest much.

Why would most people spend a extra $500 more for a device that depends upon the device that a person already has to get the same content for free or a subscription on the internet?

Doesn't make a whole lot of practical sense, but the Reality Distortion Effect is in full effect regardless.

It didn't take long for Amazon to release Kindle for Mac application, neither. Smart of them to bypass the whole iPad thing and go directly to the computer that controls the iPad in the first place.
post #3 of 33
They are using Indesign to create videos and animation? Really?!!?
post #4 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woohoo! View Post

Hope they didn't invest much.

Why would most people spend a extra $500 more for a device that depends upon the device that a person already has to get the same content for free or a subscription on the internet?

Doesn't make a whole lot of practical sense, but the Reality Distortion Effect is in full effect regardless.

It didn't take long for Amazon to release Kindle for Mac application, neither. Smart of them to bypass the whole iPad thing and go directly to the computer that controls the iPad in the first place.

A whole lot of people have already placed pre-orders. I also don't know if I'd say your computer controls the device anymore than it does the iPhone. Sometimes I download apps/music/video on my phone and sometimes on my computer and they all sync to each other. Sure, you have to have iTunes which resides on your computer but I still think it's a stretch to say it controls it.

iPod, iPad, iPad2, iPad 3, iPad Mini, iPhone, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, AppleTV (1,2 & 3), 13" MacBook Pro, 24" Cinema Display, Time Capsule, 21.5" iMac (Mid 2011)

Reply

iPod, iPad, iPad2, iPad 3, iPad Mini, iPhone, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, AppleTV (1,2 & 3), 13" MacBook Pro, 24" Cinema Display, Time Capsule, 21.5" iMac (Mid 2011)

Reply
post #5 of 33
Anybody else thinking that advertising is going to look a lot like the daily paper-- 75% ads and 25% content? And aadvertisers think "enlivening" content is the answer?
post #6 of 33
$17.99 a month for the WSJ app?!?!?? That is significantly higher than what they charge for access to their website (at least when I canceled last year).
post #7 of 33
The larger question is: are we seeing this much effort on the part of mobile advertisers, magazines, and others to produce product-specific designs for the JooJoo, Archos tablet or HP Slate? And if not, then why not?
post #8 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woohoo! View Post

It didn't take long for Amazon to release Kindle for Mac application, neither. Smart of them to bypass the whole iPad thing and go directly to the computer that controls the iPad in the first place.

Actually, the Kindle for Mac has taken a very long time; it was first rumored about back in October 2009.

Kindle for the iPhone/iPod has been around even longer.

I believe Amazon has submitted Kindle for the iPad to Apple's App Store review committee. So your assumption that Amazon is "bypassing the whole iPad thing" is false. We just don't have Kindle for iPad because the iPad hasn't been released. The release of the Mac version prior to the iPad version's availability is irrelevant.
post #9 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woohoo! View Post

Hope they didn't invest much.

Why would most people spend a extra $500 more for a device that depends upon the device that a person already has to get the same content for free or a subscription on the internet?

Doesn't make a whole lot of practical sense, but the Reality Distortion Effect is in full effect regardless.

It didn't take long for Amazon to release Kindle for Mac application, neither. Smart of them to bypass the whole iPad thing and go directly to the computer that controls the iPad in the first place.

Why do you hang around here? By next year, you'll have changed your name because you'll be exposed as the fool that you are.

It's not most people, but by the end of 2010, over 5 million people will have iPads. And that'll be way more people than have Kindles and Nooks and Sony Readers combined.

Even Amazon knows that. Obviously in your ignorance, you've missed that they will have a Kindle for iPad app soon after launch.
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #10 of 33
We'll See Soon Enough How Many Advertisers Are Really On Board...
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #11 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elian Gonzalez View Post

The larger question is: are we seeing this much effort on the part of mobile advertisers, magazines, and others to produce product-specific designs for the JooJoo, Archos tablet or HP Slate? And if not, then why not?

Question: Why should JooJoo, Hp, Archos, etc. even care about 'product-specific' solutions when they feature fully functioning web browsers that can run (long established) ZINIO Digital Publications, as well as all sites utilizing Flash/Adobe AIR, quite handily?

Answer: They Don't Care, Nor Should They
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #12 of 33
All newspapers and magazine publishers should enable potential readers to buy a single issue just as they are able to purchase one on a news stand.
The price should be substantially less than the price of the printed version.
The iTunes store makes mini payments possible so Apple would not stand in their way.
post #13 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Question: Why should JooJoo, Hp, Archos, etc. even care about 'product-specific' solutions when they feature fully functioning web browsers that can run (long established) ZINIO Digital Publications, as well as all sites utilizing Flash/Adobe AIR, quite handily?

Answer: They Don't Care, Nor Should They

ZINIO what?

Get it?

What well established sites do you care to list that are Flash/Adobe AIR dependent and are high profile ala YouTube?

When TIME WARNER and many other corporate conglomerates are moving to HTML5 watch how quickly the web moves forward w/o Flash.
post #14 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post

Anybody else thinking that advertising is going to look a lot like the daily paper-- 75% ads and 25% content? And aadvertisers think "enlivening" content is the answer?

We all know Apple would rather you buy a show than watch it online, thus lack of flash but when it comes time for reading a publication, I won't miss the voice screaming CONGRATULATIONS nor any other ad that throw my train of though off, so for publication, who-rah!!!
post #15 of 33
I'm still waiting for Apple to step up and create the ultimate WYSIWYG program/IDE for creating web or Album content using Open Source and HTML5 standards-based code. Also with built in jQuery and MooTools UI interfaces. Possibly the new version of iWeb, or a completely new application.

Regardless, we as designers need new and/or better tools to facilitate "the jump".

Just my 2 cents.
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #16 of 33
Can't wait to throw $500 down and get me a dose of ads. It's going to be awesome. And I get to pay for the content too.

Apparently this is turning the content model on its heads. It's just the same tired formula rendered on a screen.

No doubting it will sell like blazers, though.
post #17 of 33
Is that the same Zinio who released a free iPhone App a couple of weeks ago?

Might take a look.

It's good that they host their video on Vimeo so I can watch it in html5.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Question: Why should JooJoo, Hp, Archos, etc. even care about 'product-specific' solutions when they feature fully functioning web browsers that can run (long established) ZINIO Digital Publications, as well as all sites utilizing Flash/Adobe AIR, quite handily?

Answer: They Don't Care, Nor Should They
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #18 of 33
Hey! It's iPad, not iAd.
post #19 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post

Regardless, we as designers need new and/or better tools to facilitate "the jump".

I must say for the iTunes Album format I did expect some sort of authoring tool.

And it seems logical for ePub as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Is that the same Zinio who released a free iPhone App a couple of weeks ago?

ZING! Excellent counter point. Silly trolls, you can't stop the iPhone/iPad app store
post #20 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

We'll See Soon Enough How Many Advertisers Are Really On Board...

The smart ones that are interested in making money. After all, that's all who counts. We've had this discussion about quality vs. quantity before...
post #21 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

ZINIO what?

Get it?

What well established sites do you care to list that are Flash/Adobe AIR dependent and are high profile ala YouTube?

When TIME WARNER and many other corporate conglomerates are moving to HTML5 watch how quickly the web moves forward w/o Flash.

Speaking of which:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=883175

CBS is also going HTML5. All thanks to the iPad.

Expect ABC to follow suit shortly.

Apple is dictating the rules of the game.
post #22 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Speaking of which:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=883175

CBS is also going HTML5. All thanks to the iPad.

Expect ABC to follow suit shortly.

Apple is dictating the rules of the game.

Apple is not. A quality product offering is. The first quality product offering thats not some dumb geek gadget, in a long time.
post #23 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woohoo! View Post

Hope they didn't invest much.

Why would most people spend a extra $500 more for a device that depends upon the device that a person already has to get the same content for free or a subscription on the internet?

Doesn't make a whole lot of practical sense, but the Reality Distortion Effect is in full effect regardless.

It didn't take long for Amazon to release Kindle for Mac application, neither. Smart of them to bypass the whole iPad thing and go directly to the computer that controls the iPad in the first place.

Well, why do people have more than one computer in their home too? Convenience for one...and the iPad is set up to be a killer device in terms of convenient (portable/lightweight) convergence of all different media type playback, as well as providing good options for productivity/communication.

Not all web content is the same or free as their print counterparts, and they are becoming increasingly annoying to traverse as more developers infest roadblock or pop-up ads in their content, a lot of which I suspect will not be there in a true paid content version (I don't mind reasonable static, non intrusive ads, by the dynamic, fly-over stuff is ridiculous). Also, you need to be tethered to the internet to read current content - the Kindle/iBookstore model will deliver entire ePubs to your device, making it, right at the start, very appealing to the tens of millions of commuters in this country (especially since, unlike the Kindle, it is multi-purposed).

And finally, you don't have to subscribe to anything since the iPad has mobile Safari (I can't imagine that app publishers would block direct access to their regular sites based on browser identification)

The Touch and iPhone were, from one perspective, the beta devices for a platform like an iPad - we've all read the numbers that iPhone owners use three or four times the number of apps than other smartphone users, and all on the necessarily cramped screen of a pocket sized device. This is the best indicator that people are eager to use a device in this general category - Apple is betting that the potential negative of having to carry a second, larger device will be offset by the features and performance that a faster device with more real estate delivers.

Short of major technical issues at the start, the iPad will certainly not fail, though how successful it becomes is tied to how successful they are in getting the various media publishers on board - limited content availability will lessen its appeal, which is partly why Apple likes showing off all the other things the iPad does (music, photos, videos, etc.) It's distinctly NOT an ebook device, but a universal tablet that, by the way, can be a far superior ebook experience than any other device out there.
post #24 of 33
The Ipad will be a Hit, and it will all be due to the App store and Content. The App store is a huge success, I have an android Phone and Like it, but no way can its applib store even compete with the App store apple has put together. The Ipod Touch I own has such a diversity of apps, now add the Ipad's convienient size to that and it opens up so much more possible applications for it. I'm using mine for a Comic and E-reader, but it also will be a video player, game machine.. Its so mind blowing that it will fill so many niches.
post #25 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebrie View Post

$17.99 a month for the WSJ app?!?!?? That is significantly higher than what they charge for access to their website (at least when I canceled last year).

That is EXACTLY what I thought. This is just another example of a company that does not get it.

For $2.69 a week, which is $11.66 a month, I can get the print and the online journals. What do these idiots think they are going to provide for that additional cost. Media needs to learn that people do not like getting gouged.

If print and online cost $11.66 a month then an iPad only publication should be about $10 a month. At least that is all that I would pay.
post #26 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Nobody yet knows how consumers will respond to the iPad and to its new paid-content model, which will allow publishers to both charge per app and also charge subscription fees, similar to a physical newspaper or magazine.

Apple just needs a catchy marketing angle and consumers will look past the cost:



The content subscription deal is going to be tough. You pay for a device and possibly a 3G fee and then you're paying subscriptions for each publication and movies and apps. I can see this device being the most jailbroken iPod ever.

No Flash is already a problem to online advertisers - there are 70 million devices out there browsing away skipping the ads, not to mention the Flash blockers on the desktop. This may start to push them to HTML 5 advertising and then we all get our CPUs maxed out. There will need to be software to author HTML 5 animations though. If the advertising industry pushes this ahead, it has its benefits.
post #27 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

No Flash is already a problem to online advertisers - there are 70 million devices out there browsing away skipping the ads, not to mention the Flash blockers on the desktop. This may start to push them to HTML 5 advertising and then we all get our CPUs maxed out. There will need to be software to author HTML 5 animations though. If the advertising industry pushes this ahead, it has its benefits.

It has been mentioned before on the forum several times that there is currently no means of blocking HTML5 ads. In addition JS driven animations could potentially consume as much battery resources as Flash. And by the way I'll mention again that I have successfully created Flash ads that do play on the iPhone and are not blocked by ClickToFlash either.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #28 of 33
Henry Blodget hits the nail on the head right here (I think he must have read my first post)


http://www.businessinsider.com/henry...r-asses-2010-3


So it's looking like a short pop for the iPad then a drop, mainstream won't pick it up like they did the iPod Classic.

With the original iPods, one could place a copy of all their existing content on the device and mix and match, take it with them. It was a very practical, social device and solved a need.

With the iPad only all new content has to come on the device and it's not transferable to others like print media is. So people lose the social aspect of a printed copy, loaning it to friends, family and such. The iPad would be for loners and those with children who need a controlled device.

Problem with the iPod Touch is it's poor storage capability and eye candy touchscreen, so it morphed chiefly into a portable gaming device instead of a music carrying device.

With the iPad, people are going to have to shell out a minimum of $500 just to see fancier publication content that they already can get on the internet with their computers, have work with their hands a lot navigating and holding the iPad device. When people really just want to absorb essential information in the quickest and easiest way possible. RSS feeds were created for a reason. People are bombarded with information to get their attention, the iPad is just another device aiming to do that.

The iPad is just too much work, the screen will require constant cleaning, the storage is downright pitifully small.

Sorry Apple, I can't find too much positive about this device outside the youth/educational market.

People need to feel the device is going to save them money or provide a essential need, not just having to pay more for a fancier way of getting something they already get for free or cheaper. Rich snob device is my estimation of the iPad.

The reflective, fragile, glass touchscreen that large is going to have major issues.
post #29 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

ZINIO what?

Get it?

What well established sites do you care to list that are Flash/Adobe AIR dependent and are high profile ala YouTube?

When TIME WARNER and many other corporate conglomerates are moving to HTML5 watch how quickly the web moves forward w/o Flash.

There's nothing to 'Get'.

All you've shown is that you're locked into some little technologically unaware world that has left you unfamiliar with a proven effective (been using it for over 7 years now) method of buying/enjoying digital publications e.g ZINIO.

Additionally: Platforms that currently support Adobe Flash and Adobe AIR don't require that companies take any special steps to function because the have hardware/software capable enough to support their offerings... Right Here/Right Now.
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #30 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarpad View Post

The Ipad will be a Hit, and it will all be due to the App store and Content. The App store is a huge success, I have an android Phone and Like it, but no way can its applib store even compete with the App store apple has put together. The Ipod Touch I own has such a diversity of apps, now add the Ipad's convienient size to that and it opens up so much more possible applications for it. I'm using mine for a Comic and E-reader, but it also will be a video player, game machine.. Its so mind blowing that it will fill so many niches.

Maybe you should consider upgrading to an actual modern Google Phone (android 2.x) that supports the Google Market.

The Applib is rather archaic by comparison, as the Google Market offers a far superior layout, as well as 10's of thousand more apps, many that parallel iPhone App functionality (if that's your thing).
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #31 of 33
You can get this:-

http://www.zinio.com/splash.jsp?code=ipad

Hey is there an Android version?

The Zinio App is free, some of the subscriptions are pretty expensive and the "magazines" still contain Ads, there's a few free samples of older magazines.

The National Geographic is not bad, it's quite readable, it should be stunning on the larger iPad screen.

Saving content to read offline is a nice touch.

Thanks for the heads up, it's not a bad App.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

There's nothing to 'Get'.

All you've shown is that you're locked into some little technologically unaware world that has left you unfamiliar with a proven effective (been using it for over 7 years now) method of buying/enjoying digital publications e.g ZINIO.

Additionally: Platforms that currently support Adobe Flash and Adobe AIR don't require that companies take any special steps to function because the have hardware/software capable enough to support their offerings... Right Here/Right Now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Maybe you should consider upgrading to an actual modern Google Phone (android 2.x) that supports the Google Market.

The Applib is rather archaic by comparison, as the Google Market offers a far superior layout, as well as 10's of thousand more apps, many that parallel iPhone App functionality (if that's your thing).
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #32 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woohoo! View Post

Doesn't make a whole lot of practical sense, but the Reality Distortion Effect is in full effect regardless.

"Reality Distortion Effect" is anything spewing from a troll's mouth. Try mouthwash woohoo.
post #33 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebrie View Post

$17.99 a month for the WSJ app?!?!?? That is significantly higher than what they charge for access to their website (at least when I canceled last year).

Herr Murdoch, F├╝hrer of News Corp., has dictated that his publications are going to gouge Internet readers with fees. This WSJ stunt is exactly what he meant. He's bucking the way the Internet works. The obvious response is to ignore him and use the superior alternatives.

(Keep in mind that this is the guy who invented 'tits on page 3' and FuxNews).
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Advertisers quick to invest money in new iPad publications