AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › GQ magazine iPad sales start slow, but publisher has high hopes
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

GQ magazine iPad sales start slow, but publisher has high hopes - Page 2

post #41 of 82
5/17/10 at 4:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by benice View Post

The other problem is that the ad-saturation that's so obvious with the major glossy magazines becomes even more obvious when you see it on screen and it's discouraging to readers.

Actually, most magazine readers no longer differentiate where they get their information from. The advertising and editorial are of equal service to them. This is especially true for fashion and lifestyle magazines. The days of church/state separation between advertising and editorial are basically gone.

Legally (postal rules) a magazine must be at least 20% editorial to be mailed under periodical postage regulations. Most magazines maximize their ad/edit ratio in order to maximize profits and the expense of paper and distribution. Subscription income hardly covers the basic overhead. My assumption is that only advertisers who pay are going into the digital version, and they are replicating only the parts of the magazine for which they have digital rights. So no matter how you slice it, the digital version will never be the same content as the print. That's why they need to reinvent the entire experience.

The fact is that editorial departments are not set up to provide continuous digital content, especially rich media experiences. Creating a monthly event digitally will be a problem for any magazine which goes onto the iPad. This is why the majority of success lays in opinion and news formats.
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 82
5/17/10 at 4:40pm
Really what sort of person would read CQ these days? It strikes me as a magazine for lesbians that want to dress like a man but still look like a girl.


Dave
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 82
5/17/10 at 5:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Yohe View Post

Sorry, but currently these guys don't know what they are doing. Selling single issues?

Get a model going guys!

One app, subscriptions.

Don't make me download more apps for each week! (TIME I'm looking at you)

They are not selling single issue. They are selling you their app with the current issue for $2.99. You can buy more issues at $1.99 from within the app. You don't need separate app for each issue.
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 82
5/17/10 at 5:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpotOn View Post

For a e-reader the iPad is a expensive device.

Here's some adoption rates among computer users (PC and Mac) of similar Apple products.

iPod (various types except Touch) adoption rate: 36% price: $59 to $249 2 GB to 160 GB of storage

iPod Touch adoption rate: 9% price: $199 to $399 storage: 8 GB to 64 GB


Now the iPad

iPad price: $499 to $829 storage: 16 GB to 64 GB


So it's relatively easy to see that the higher the price is, and the less storage capacity, the less the adoption rate is.

It's not practical to put a hard drive into a device used for games, but the drastic costs for flash memory is certainly taking it's toll on the adoption rate for devices that use it.

This in turn has it's effects on those who purchase content for the iPad. I optimistically give the adoption rate for the iPad about 4-5% about a year from now.

I don't know if you have heard this or not but Apple is not having problem selling iPads. They have problem keeping up with demand.
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 82
5/17/10 at 5:37pm
It would have been great if all of this had been worked out before launch but I think the publishers were skeptical and stuck in their ways. As time goes on, they will come around and a model will work itself out.

I think it should be subscriptions through iTunes and read in iBooks. Not individual apps. There should be incentives to order packages of subscriptions. Maybe 3, 5, 7 etc. That can be figured out. But I would be able to pick 3 different magazines I like and get a year's subscription for a discounted price. What those prices are, I am not sure. They must be low enough to encourage the growth of the model. Then as years go on they can ease them up a bit.
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 82
5/17/10 at 5:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulky Cranium View Post

One Thousand and ninety-one dollars in sales!! Surely that must be a typo.

Or, instead of asking, you could do a little math. They said that they sold 365 copies of the app at $2.99 each.

However, that's initial sales. Those people will also be receiving each issue for $1.99 and sales will undoubtedly grow as more iPads hit the market.

The publisher says they're happy with the numbers.
"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 #47 of 82
5/17/10 at 6:24pm
I am not buying a single magazine on the iPad.

what good is a magazine when I can load up hundreds of thousands of news websites, blogs, special interest sites, etc, all of them for free? In addition, all of them navigate and look great on the iPad.
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 82
5/17/10 at 6:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by teonyc View Post

The problem is that most of the audience already reads the magazine

I think the bigger problem is how many people are interested in GQ and own an iPad and want to use an iPad to read the magazine. There are only 1 million iPads out there so far. If you take the reading population of GQ vs the US population, it's around:

$1m/$5 = 200k readers/300m = 0.06%
If you apply that same stat to the iPad then you get 667 readers in the best case so 365 sales is not that far off.

To generate $1m from the iPad, they would need 500k sales and from the same stats, Apple would need to have over 800 million iPads out there.

The fundamental problem with the iPad as a consumption device is that it starts at $500. That amount of money would buy you yearly subscriptions to 50 magazines and you still have to pay a subscription after you buy the device.

Still, I think volume will help - I wonder how many of the iPhone/iPod apps they sell with an 85 million audience.
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 82
5/17/10 at 6:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

I don't know if you have heard this or not but Apple is not having problem selling iPads. They have problem keeping up with demand.

Clearly there is a difference between the adoption rate and artificially restricting supply below demand for marketing purposes.

A higher adoption percentage translates to more units sold, thus more revenue and as a result, more subscriptions.
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 82
5/17/10 at 7:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpotOn View Post

Clearly there is a difference between the adoption rate and artificially restricting supply below demand for marketing purposes.

You are kidding, right?!

Quote:
A higher adoption percentage translates to more units sold, thus more revenue and as a result, more subscriptions.

The goal is more units sold. As an earlier poster pointed out the iPad sold one million units in one month. It is still early to see any real increase in specific app sale. I believe there was an article few weeks ago about a developer stating that his current iPad app sale count for 5% of the iPhones version. This is normal since we have more than 50 million iPhones and iPod Touches sold over the last 3 years vs 1 million iPad sold in one month. Things won't happen overnight. Higher adaption rate and sales are coming with time.
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 82
5/17/10 at 7:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreyfus2 View Post

Oops. That was me. I wanted an annual subscription

You raise a good point mentioning subs. Being that if most people that read this mag use the 12 month sub model. That means that its going to take a few months to see the readers change from the hardcopy version to the iPad one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

That is only for the single issue currently available on the iPad.
As of last week, 365 people using the iPad, purchased the December 2009 (5 month old)Men of the Year issue.

This then follows on from above being that its 5 months old. A lot of their readers would already have the copy and their subs are still a fair while away from running out .

Id say as soon as the people start coming off subscription and the content on the iPad is 1:1 with the print magazine (even if it is a few days later but not over a week) we will see sales increase dramatically.

As for someone above mentioning Wired .... Aren't they Gawker Media????

It may be a while before they work out a deal with Apple after their current run ins
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 82
5/17/10 at 7:16pm
This is a story? Must be a slow news day.
Ariel
GreenLeaf Imaging
Reply
Ariel
GreenLeaf Imaging
Reply
post #53 of 82
5/17/10 at 7:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

I think the bigger problem is how many people are interested in GQ and own an iPad and want to use an iPad to read the magazine. There are only 1 million iPads out there so far. If you take the reading population of GQ vs the US population, it's around:

$1m/$5 = 200k readers/300m = 0.06%
If you apply that same stat to the iPad then you get 667 readers in the best case so 365 sales is not that far off.

To generate $1m from the iPad, they would need 500k sales and from the same stats, Apple would need to have over 800 million iPads out there.

Good stuff!
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 82
5/17/10 at 7:36pm
they charge for the app ?!?!???
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 82
5/17/10 at 8:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacHarborGuy View Post

I am not buying a single magazine on the iPad.

what good is a magazine when I can load up hundreds of thousands of news websites, blogs, special interest sites, etc, all of them for free? In addition, all of them navigate and look great on the iPad.

It depends on whether you can find related content of decent quality and consistent polish.

Quote:
Originally Posted by galore View Post

they charge for the app ?!?!???

It's the app plus one issue at well below news stand pricing. But if you like the the magazine, Amazon has it for $12 for a year's subscription, so the pricing is only good as Ã* la carte or impulse purchases.
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 82
5/17/10 at 8:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wurm5150 View Post

I think the iPad is so new and one of it's kind right now that publishers have no clue what to do as far as content and format on the iPad. Either that or they're just too lazy to do something different and are just content on converting their print editions to digital and just tweek it a little bit. But I think Wired's upcoming app might be the one magazine that all others will be measured against and hopefully the rest will follow.

I stopped reading (print) magazines a couple years ago but I started reading them again when I got the iPad. Although it's not much different than the paper version I find reading mags on the iPad far more convenient and a better experience not to mention far less annoying ads. It'll get better (for my wallet) with subscriptions coming soon and hopefully add more features like interactivity that takes advantage of the iPad's capabilities and eventually will distinguish itself apart from their paper counterparts.

You said it better than I did...but that is exactly what I was thinking, too!
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 82
5/17/10 at 8:31pm
I might consider buying if it was 99 cents for a one year subscription. Per issue pricing is absurd and ridiculous. My reaction: Surely you jest. No one in their right mind is going to pay these prices on a per issue basis. Get over it.

The iPad is all about volume. Give it away free and build your distribution. Then you have a story to take to advertisers. Per issue pricing isn't going to work. High annual subscription prices (eg: more than $10) won't work either. Just forget those options. They're not a viable possibility.
Reply
Reply
post #58 of 82
5/17/10 at 8:41pm
ZINIO
Do check this out if you haven't already. I am intrigued by it. Some reviews aren't so good and the prices aren't mind-blowingly fantastic, but hey, it's a start for the iPad.
Reply
Reply
post #59 of 82
5/17/10 at 8:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpotOn View Post

For a e-reader the iPad is a expensive device.

Here's some adoption rates among computer users (PC and Mac) of similar Apple products.

iPod (various types except Touch) adoption rate: 36% price: $59 to $249 2 GB to 160 GB of storage

iPod Touch adoption rate: 9% price: $199 to $399 storage: 8 GB to 64 GB


Now the iPad

iPad price: $499 to $829 storage: 16 GB to 64 GB


So it's relatively easy to see that the higher the price is, and the less storage capacity, the less the adoption rate is.

It's not practical to put a hard drive into a device used for games, but the drastic costs for flash memory is certainly taking it's toll on the adoption rate for devices that use it.

This in turn has it's effects on those who purchase content for the iPad. I optimistically give the adoption rate for the iPad about 4-5% about a year from now.



Dude what does this have to do with the topic?
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 82
5/17/10 at 8:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by macosxp View Post

This is a story? Must be a slow news day.

They're waiting for the MacBook White update in less than 24 hours. wooooo about 12 hours to go, actually...
Reply
Reply
post #61 of 82
5/17/10 at 8:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Agreed. Also the price is steep considering the market it sits in.

Does anyone know if the app includes *all* the content of the magazine? GQ is usually over a centimetre thick when I see it in the store. I'm thinking this app pretty much has to be a small subset of the real magazine. It's priced the same as a game that you might play over and over for years, but all you get is some text and pictures and then have to buy it all over again next month? And the month after that too?

It just doesn't seem like a good deal to me, but then I don't read GQ (or any magazines) anyway.

You don't read any magazines anyway. . .so how can your opinion count for anything but worthless hearsay and gossip? YOURS is the waste of bandwidth.
Daniel Swanson
Van-garde Imagery, Inc.
611 S. Ft. Harrison #365
Clearwater FL, 33756
http://www.van-garde.com
dan@van-garde.com
Reply
Daniel Swanson
Van-garde Imagery, Inc.
611 S. Ft. Harrison #365
Clearwater FL, 33756
http://www.van-garde.com
dan@van-garde.com
Reply
post #62 of 82
5/17/10 at 10:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpotOn View Post

Some routers will allow you to block IP's, of course you would have batch resolve all Domain Names first.

Wonder if there is a app for that?

http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.txt

I installed the Tomato firmware on my Buffalo router and then added this DNS cache-poisoning script:

http://www.linksysinfo.org/forums/sh...ad.php?t=57556

which uses the MVPS list. My router grabs the latest list three times a day.
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 82
5/17/10 at 10:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Aren't the men that read GQ supposed to be a little more manly, comfortable with who they are, and actually *not* scared of appearing gay?

Seriously, if you even think of stuff like this and are not a complete homophobe or over 75, you might have some problems with your own concept of manhood.

Sorry to burst your gay bubble and throw some reality in your face.
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 82
5/18/10 at 2:09am
I was one of the 365, and the comment I left on the APPsite was :
"Not very good for small (iPHONE) screen and would be much better if available as download for desktop/MacBook use".
Of course, at the time of release, the iPAD wasn't yet known. Bearing in mind the rather blunt comment of Hussinger, when he said : "this costs us nothing extra, no printing or postage, everything is profit", there's no reason why the price couldn't be brought down a bit (much !) more...
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 82
5/18/10 at 4:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Does anyone know if the app includes *all* the content of the magazine? GQ is usually over a centimetre thick when I see it in the store. anyway.

Oh my god! A centimeter thick? How could they fit SO much information in the iPad? It's not even a centimeter thick itself! Impossible!
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 82
5/18/10 at 5:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

You are kidding, right?!

I'm pretty sure he's somehow posting from an alternate universe where even the laws of physics describing the locally observable phenomena are different.
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 82
5/18/10 at 5:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by teonyc View Post

Actually, most magazine readers no longer differentiate where they get their information from. The advertising and editorial are of equal service to them. This is especially true for fashion and lifestyle magazines. The days of church/state separation between advertising and editorial are basically gone.

Legally (postal rules) a magazine must be at least 20% editorial to be mailed under periodical postage regulations. Most magazines maximize their ad/edit ratio in order to maximize profits and the expense of paper and distribution. Subscription income hardly covers the basic overhead. My assumption is that only advertisers who pay are going into the digital version, and they are replicating only the parts of the magazine for which they have digital rights. So no matter how you slice it, the digital version will never be the same content as the print. That's why they need to reinvent the entire experience.

The fact is that editorial departments are not set up to provide continuous digital content, especially rich media experiences. Creating a monthly event digitally will be a problem for any magazine which goes onto the iPad. This is why the majority of success lays in opinion and news formats.

Interesting post. I'm not sure what to think of readers not differentiating between ad/edit content, but at face value it highlights a shift I hadn't realised was now a fait accompli.
Reply
Reply
post #68 of 82
5/18/10 at 6:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by winst View Post

I will buy it if

1, it is $1.99 per issue, but I can subscribe 12 issues for $9.99
2, it contains all pages from the paper version
3, I can sync the magazine between my iPad/iPhone.

Agreed. Have you thought of sending them this feedback? I would...
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 82
5/18/10 at 6:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

ZINIO
Do check this out if you haven't already. I am intrigued by it. Some reviews aren't so good and the prices aren't mind-blowingly fantastic, but hey, it's a start for the iPad.

Absolutely! I downloaded this specifically to use on my iPad even before I had it. So far I've only got one subscription... Surfer Magazine at $9.99 a year. I used to subscribe to it a long time ago but just got to the point I was being overrun with all of them (and many others too). It's great. Easy to read, all the pages in the print version and the pictures are awesome on the screen. It came with some sample magazines and there's an issue of National Geographic and the photography is stunning. I'll probably end up subscribing to it too. So far I'm really liking Zinio.
Reply
Reply
post #70 of 82
5/18/10 at 6:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


"This costs us nothing extra, no printing or postage," he said. "Everything is profit, and I look forward to the time when iPad issue sales become a major component to our circulation."



Cost them nothing? Pure profit?


I think he needs some accounting and business management (or honesty?) lessons.
Reply
Reply
post #71 of 82
5/18/10 at 6:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damn_Its_Hot View Post

I don't know about anyone else but I have been hit by a bunch of adverts trying to get me to subscribe to GQ and other Conde Nast publications. They have a great opportunity (to really add to the content) with WIRED but I have not heard anything about it.


I think that Apple screwed WiReD when it changed its developer agreement, which accounts for the delay.
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 82
5/18/10 at 6:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

Agreed! Where's the imagination for the new delivery method? Ride the wave!

Where's the 'Wow' factor?



And I thought that Apple was going to single-handedly save the print industry...
Reply
Reply
post #73 of 82
5/18/10 at 6:55am
That's 364 issues more than they sold in print! And 14,340,586,350 less than Maxim.
Reply
Reply
post #74 of 82
5/18/10 at 6:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

GQ?!

Outside of a a few-block radius of midtown Manhattan's 5th Ave, does anyone read that stuff any more?

They sell about 10,000,000 issues a year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GQ#Circ..._and_Ownership
Reply
Reply
post #75 of 82
5/18/10 at 7:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacHarborGuy View Post


what good is a magazine when I can load up hundreds of thousands of news websites, blogs, special interest sites, etc, all of them for free? In addition, all of them navigate and look great on the iPad.


I agree. Monthly magazines are at least 2 or 3 months behind the curve these days.

Even printed newspapers print yesterday's news - by the time the print edition might hit my doorstep, all theonline news stories have been updated twice.

If you buy a computer magazine as of right now, they likely will inform you that Apple has just announced their new product, the iPad.
Reply
Reply
post #76 of 82
5/18/10 at 7:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wurm5150 View Post

I know Popular Science is combining their print and iPad subscription rreal SOON! At least that was what I was told when I emailed them. I bought one iPad issue but won't be purchasing again until the subscription is up and running.

Time Magazine also said that they will be doing subscriptions in the coming months. Don't know when exactly. Hopefully they'll combine their print subscription with their iPad subscription like PopSci is planning on doing. They used to sell one app for every single issues but they since created a single app where you can purchase in-app.

I believe Conde Nast is planning a subscription also but I guess they and the other publishers are playing which model will work. But based on user comments they might eventually just stick with a discounted subscription model just like the print versions.

I hope so. I was also thinking how will they allow for the management of the different issues? Obviously people don't want to carry ALL of their issues with them at some point as it will get too large. So how do you remove select issues from your app? I hope that there's a way to do that. Offload to your PC/Mac.

Second, I think that there's a way for publishers to change the ads revenue model on these magazines. Instead of using static ads like in the print, they can use more interactive and dynamic ads which changes depending on who's paying them what. So the ads would change each time you view a specific month's issue. Essentially, the content of the magazine doesn't change, but the ads do. That would also mean that the magazines only need to have the content makinig the files sizes smaller.
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 82
5/18/10 at 10:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by benice View Post

Interesting post. I'm not sure what to think of readers not differentiating between ad/edit content, but at face value it highlights a shift I hadn't realised was now a fait accompli.


Back in the 1980's, when the yuppies were first being born from ranks of the urban pioneers, before the first great real estate crash and long before the internet was a cultural phenomenon, Boston had a self-conscious throwaway publication called STUFF, which consisted of NOTHING but cutting-edge visual advertising of local trendy lifestyle stores and restaurants.

It was fun to flip through on the subway. It still blows my mind that such a publication existed. My gay friends who worked in fashion and advertising would page through it oohing and aahing. I used to chuckle inwardly.
Reply
Reply
post #78 of 82
5/18/10 at 10:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutcho View Post

Oh my god! A centimeter thick? How could they fit SO much information in the iPad? It's not even a centimeter thick itself! Impossible!

The display glass is very thin. I don't think a thick magazine would do well on the iPad.
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 82
5/18/10 at 10:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

It was fun to flip through on the subway. It still blows my mind that such a publication existed. My gay friends who worked in fashion and advertising would page through it oohing and aahing. I used to chuckle inwardly.

Because they didn't know you're gay too?
Reply
Reply
post #80 of 82
5/18/10 at 12:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

I don't know if you have heard this or not but Apple is not having problem selling iPads. They have problem keeping up with demand.

We should ask him how much he is willing to place as a bet on his prediction ... SpoOn May 18th 2010 said:" I optimistically give the adoption rate for the iPad about 4-5% about a year from now."
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
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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › GQ magazine iPad sales start slow, but publisher has high hopes