or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Soft sales prompt Conde Nast to slow addition of magazines to Apple's iPad
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Soft sales prompt Conde Nast to slow addition of magazines to Apple's iPad

post #1 of 55
Thread Starter 
Publisher Conde Nast is not abandoning the iPad, but weaker-than-expected sales of digital version of its publications on the iPad have caused the company to slow the introduction of brands to Apple's tablet.

According to Ad Age, Conde Nast is "tapping the brakes" on delivering iPad editions of its existing line of print magazines. Currently available are Wired, GQ, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, Golf Digest, Self and Allure, but the publisher reportedly does not see a strong business case for adding more options.

"That hardly means Conde is done with the iPad," author Nat Ives wrote. "It remains committed to creating iPad editions for its titles, with an undisclosed one planned to arrive in May. And it has created many other kinds of iPad apps tied to its brands that don't attempt to deliver an entire print issue's experience."

Previously, Conde Nast was pushing to make all of its magazines available on the ipad. But since initial sales were not as strong as expected, the company has decided to slow its approach. "We're not rushing," one publisher reportedly said.

Some of the company's biggest products remain without an iPad edition: W, Vogue, Teen Vogue, Details, Architectural Digest, Brides, Lucky, Golf World, Bon Appetit, and Conde Nast Traveler. The publisher reportedly plans to launch many of them in the coming months, and some in early 2012.

Conde Nast made a splash last year, when it partnered with Adobe to bring Wired to the iPad as quickly as possible. The magazine got off to a strong start, selling more than 100,000 copies in its first month.



But by the end of 2010, sales had slowed significantly, to 22,000 in October and 23,000 in November. And Vanity Fair sold just 8,700 copies on the iPad in November.

Apple introduced recurring subscriptions for publications on its iOS App Store in February. But many publishers have not agreed to Apple's terms, in which the iPad maker keeps a 30 percent cut of all transactions. As a result, publications like Wired can only be purchased issue-by-issue at a much higher price than subscriptions typically offer.
post #2 of 55
Personally I think it's getting more and more likely that Apple will eventually admit (by changing the policy) this might not have been the best revenue idea they've had. They simply appear to be grabbing all the revenue they can squeeze from their users. It doesn't make magazines and newspapers less expensive or a better value for iOS users. To the contrary.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #3 of 55
The expectations of iOS users, i.e., what they want to pay for an internet publication may not jive with that of the publishing companies.

For example, New York Times is the main online paper I read. I used to be an annual subscriber during my student days when we get subsidized educational discounts.

But, I would never buy the current online subscription of New York Times because it is "too costly", especially so because I can read the same "summary information" from other current free online newspapers.

It is anectdotal but most likely many NYT readers have the same reaction.

The 70-30% split is not the main issue.

In regard Conde Nast "Wired", I have browsed some of their contents, once in awhile, but it just does not appeal to me. The fees they charge per issue may even be unattractive to their most avid readers.

The reality is that the internet and other alternative mass media have impacted the business of news dissemination and consumption.


Apple Ecosystems
post #4 of 55
It's not about what's 'best', it's about transitioning other media to digital. Audio and video have already made the switch almost entirely, print is on it's way.

What these corporations are missing is that it's not about making more money at all, it's about getting with the times and making use of the efficienties our new technology has brought us. Some industries are flat out going to die because they are no longer useful. i.e. Record labels...

Save the trees baby yeah!
post #5 of 55
zite and pulse are free
post #6 of 55
That's because the prices are terrible and non-competitive with the print versions. Also no access for print subscribers.
post #7 of 55
I'm a wired subscriber but they charge more for the digital version (which must have lower production and distribution costs) than for the print version, so I stuck with the latter.

Other periodicals I subscribe to (NG, Economist, etc) give me the digital version for free as a subscriber and I am happy to support them.

I took the bait for the NYTs subscription intro, but won't be continuing after the trial period because they want to charge more for access on both my iPhone and iPad than for just the iPad; go figure. If these companies could come up with reasonable models they would get support. Ridiculous models will be ignored. As others have mentioned, they better get this figured out quickly or they will perish in the marketplace.
post #8 of 55
Conde's offerings are still without subscriptions. This means:

1. You pay newsstand price for each issue.
2. You have to buy each issue separately. With a subscription you would get a new issue automatically, no re-entering your Apple ID password every time to buy.

Conde: Maybe you can get away with selling individual issues at newsstand prices on Madison Avenue in New York City, but the majority of mainstream America isn't going to pay $47.88 ($3.99 x 12) a year for your magazines.
post #9 of 55
This whole magazine thing is a fu**ing disaster. I don't want an App that is a magazine. I want an App that holds my magazines.

Zinio is the only App that's gotten it right. Prices are reasonable and every month my new issues are waiting and I don't have to do anything to get them.
post #10 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post

This whole magazine thing is a fu**ing disaster. I don't want an App that is a magazine. I want an App that holds my magazines.

Zinio is the only App that's gotten it right. Prices are reasonable and every month my new issues are waiting and I don't have to do anything to get them.

That's what I agree with. I don't need an app that's a magazine. I want an app that holds magazines.
post #11 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by schralp View Post

I'm a wired subscriber but they charge more for the digital version (which must have lower production and distribution costs) than for the print version, so I stuck with the latter.

Other periodicals I subscribe to (NG, Economist, etc) give me the digital version for free as a subscriber and I am happy to support them.

I took the bait for the NYTs subscription intro, but won't be continuing after the trial period because they want to charge more for access on both my iPhone and iPad than for just the iPad; go figure. If these companies could come up with reasonable models they would get support. Ridiculous models will be ignored. As others have mentioned, they better get this figured out quickly or they will perish in the marketplace.

The NYTimes mobile web site looks better and loads faster than the NYTimes iPhone app, though the iPad app is actually pretty awesome.

I got a free trial of the web site (including the mobile site) and iPhone app that runs through the end of the year, but I never use the iPhone app.

I'm hoping the iPad pricing will be a dud and that the Times will revise it later this year.
post #12 of 55
We don't need repackaged content on the tablet.

Look at how we consume content today: We browse web sites, read blogs, texting on the phones, email links to friends.

We want information NOW.

All content should be published when it is ready, not on a daily, weekly or a monthly schedule.
post #13 of 55
Isn't that what news alerts are for?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #14 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

That's what I agree with. I don't need an app that's a magazine. I want an app that holds magazines.

I agree too, for th magazines I actually read because they have reasonable subscription terms (Newsweek, Businessweek , and Popular Science), I wish they did not all have different apps. Business week has the best interface of the three. I would get wired if they had a reasonable price. I got the free issue last month. 4.99 an issue (or really anything over $15 a year) is never going to fly for a mass market monthly magazine.
post #15 of 55
More like exorbitant pricing model (e.g., $3.99 per Wired issue) and low quality iPad application (stability, very large size of each edition) prompt Conde Nest to slow addition of magazines to Apple's iPad.
post #16 of 55
I get a lot of magazines at work. All kinds - Architecture, art, science, fashion, business, and technology. I find that for me the traditional paper magazine reading experience is much different than my online reading habits. I enjoy just leafing through the paper media, casually looking then perhaps reading some, and the full page ads I often find very interesting because they are usually artistically designed.

On the digital front I tend to be much more focused on the details of the content and the ads for some reason I find annoying. Not sure why there is such a different perception between the two but I can see that the digital version of the paper format doesn't exactly translate the complete user experience even if the content is mostly equal.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #17 of 55
Yeah, its because they invented this new thing called the Web. Anyone heard of it?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #18 of 55
The problem is if they're going to deal with Apple, it ties their hands somewhat on promotional offers and the like. Apple wants their 30% for . . . well, I don't really know, but it doesn't matter. It's their playground. But top that off with not being able to make a better subscription offer anywhere else, including their own inserts and websites.

In effect they either have to trust that Apple's ecosystem will deliver subscribers and put their future in Apple's hands, or don't offer subscriptions via the AppStore at all. In Conde Nast's case, the AppStore may not be the best way for them to attract subscribers.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #19 of 55
Who cares about price? What about the product? It sucks. Glorified PDFs.

What's so hard about selecting File > Export in InDesign, then calling it an online magazine?

I know The Daily isn't all that, but at least they tried redefining the tablet model by starting from scratch. They moved the platform forward, albeit not that much.
post #20 of 55
That kind of sums it up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DamonF View Post

Conde's offerings are still without subscriptions. This means:

1. You pay newsstand price for each issue.
2. You have to buy each issue separately. With a subscription you would get a new issue automatically, no re-entering your Apple ID password every time to buy.

Conde: Maybe you can get away with selling individual issues at newsstand prices on Madison Avenue in New York City, but the majority of mainstream America isn't going to pay $47.88 ($3.99 x 12) a year for your magazines.
post #21 of 55
"I want an app that holds magazines."

And I want a television that holds radio stations . . . a car that holds my horse . . . a book that holds my tablets (stone tablets, that is).

If you want something to hold your magazines I would suggest you go to Pier One and buy a wicker basket.

The problem with Condé Nast's tablet strategy is simple: they argued and argued internally about native apps versus using Adobe Digital Publishing Suite, a conversion tool. Then went with the conversion tool rather than building something new, something that worked on a new platform - strike one.

Then they priced their conversion product like a print product - strike two.

Then they expected that the market, in this case, the 16 million iPad owners spread out worldwide would give them sales results more in line with the US market, made up of a couple hundred million adults. It was unrealistic, we are still in the early days of tablet publishing - strike three.

If you want to know what the tablet can do for publishing don't look at iPad apps from Condé Nast, look at what independent publishers are doing.

If you want a print magazine buy a print magazine. I love print. But I love digital, too. I don't want print in digital form anymore than I would want YouTube to put out a magazine with stills in the place of video.
post #22 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

On the digital front I tend to be much more focused on the details of the content and the ads for some reason I find annoying. Not sure why there is such a different perception between the two but I can see that the digital version of the paper format doesn't exactly translate the complete user experience even if the content is mostly equal.

Are you referring to animated ads that bounce all over your screen and blast your speakers? What would be the equivalent of this in printed media?
post #23 of 55
Wired is giving a free edition out for the Ipad right now.

It took a long time to download and the content was lacking much meat. You would think if they were trying to persuade you to buy, they would give a better showing.

Oh, they had a lot of bell and whistles with the content format, it was real niffy, but you got have the content. \
post #24 of 55
Magazine and Newspaper publishers have wild and crazy ideas about pricing. They just don't get it. They really don't. They're trying to force an obsolete business model onto the Internet. It isn't going to work. Not now. Not ever. iPad or no iPad.

Apple revolutionized the music industry by unbundling CDs which did three things that consumers love:
-> Most of the time you only wanted one or two songs from an album. Music companies could not longer force you to buy an entire album. Just buy the songs you want. Magazines are somewhat similar. Most people aren't interested in most of the articles in a particular issue, just one or two.
-> The $1 per song pricing put it into the impulse purchase category. You could afford to buy on a whim without making a big purchase decision. No $14 or $15 CD. The magazine parallel is obvious. If I'm thinking about an Italy vacation i might be willing to pay a dime or a quarter to read the Italy article in Conde Nast Traveler. But I don't want to be on the hook for an annual subscription. And I have no interest in the articles on Las Vegas, South America, China, or wherever. This year it's just Italy.
-> Instant online purchase and download means instant gratification. Perfect along with the whim purchase at a trivial impulse price. The ability to sample a song before buying, then a single click, and boom, you have it.

What Conde Nast traveler should do is work toward getting several million people to opt into a mailing list which involves a monthly email listing the new issue's table of contents along with a thumbnail description. Each major article should be priced at about 10 cents with a single click to buy (or make it free and ad supported). An issue that features Italy with multiple articles might be priced at 25 cents for the Italy bundle. A special deal might offer all of the Conde Nast articles on Italy going back five years collected together into a single download for maybe $2 (still an impulse buy).

Get 2 million readers paying 10 cents an article and clicking way. Match up the ads to their interests dynamically like Google's ad sense. If they buy the Italy bundle they get the Italy ads. Make it dirt cheap or even free. Get the high volume circulation and take that the data to advertisers.

There are some smart people in the publishing industry but they seem to be suffering from brain lockup disease when it comes to Internet marketing and pricing strategies. I suspect it's because they're fearful of their children eating the parents. They're afraid to put out an internet product that might kill off their traditional hard copy print business.

Well, hmmmmmm. Think about that. Would it be better for you to do it or to back off and let your competitor do it. Information distribution via the Internet is a steamroller quickly gathering momentum. If your children don't eat their parents then your compeitor's children will eat your children's parents as well as their own.
post #25 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

The problem is if they're going to deal with Apple, it ties their hands somewhat on promotional offers and the like.

Conde Nast doesn't participate in subscriptions. They don't have to operate within Apple's subscription rules.

Quote:
Apple wants their 30% for . . . well, I don't really know, but it doesn't matter. It's their playground.

Its for providing a platform and a customer that they otherwise would not have had. There is a cost to Apple for building and maintaining all of this. They are not a philanthropy.
post #26 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

Are you referring to animated ads that bounce all over your screen and blast your speakers? What would be the equivalent of this in printed media?

I have no idea what you are asking that for.

That is like asking what is the digital equivalent of a scratch and sniff ad?

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #27 of 55
The "answer" depends somewhat on the magazine.

I subscribe to the New Yorker. I'd would be very happy simply to have a straight-forward digital edition of it in place of my print edition. Problem: iPad version costs *$235* a year (47 x $5). Print edition is currently going for *$47* a year (47 x $1). I could get *5* years of the print edition for the same cost as 1 year of the digital edition. That's just stupid.

There's enough blame to go around - both Apple and the magazine publishers are being short-sighted and greedy... just like every "big content" dinosaur before them.
post #28 of 55
To be fair, many of the major newspapers update their online content "to the minute".

What is lost in the process of "up to the minute" news is the measure of accuracy and perspectives of news reporting.

It was big news in itself when many print paper had as their "banner headline" -- "Dewey Elected President of the US", or something like that.

News reports may also be easily edited to cater to pressure or populist demands after teh first version was published. What is lost in the process is the true expression of diverse perspectives of the same event that is being reported.

Onlinr news, as a result have become more generic. In the US, the socio-political and economic perspectives of the publishes have become the main distinguishing feature of news reports.

Apple Ecosystems

Quote:
Originally Posted by winstein2010 View Post

We don't need repackaged content on the tablet.

Look at how we consume content today: We browse web sites, read blogs, texting on the phones, email links to friends.

We want information NOW.

All content should be published when it is ready, not on a daily, weekly or a monthly schedule.
post #29 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by davesmall View Post

Magazine and Newspaper publishers have wild and crazy ideas about pricing. They just don't get it. They really don't. They're trying to force an obsolete business model onto the Internet. It isn't going to work. Not now. Not ever. iPad or no iPad.

Apple revolutionized the music industry by unbundling CDs which did three things that consumers love:
-> Most of the time you only wanted one or two songs from an album. Music companies could not longer force you to buy an entire album. Just buy the songs you want. Magazines are somewhat similar. Most people aren't interested in most of the articles in a particular issue, just one or two.
-> The $1 per song pricing put it into the impulse purchase category. You could afford to buy on a whim without making a big purchase decision. No $14 or $15 CD. The magazine parallel is obvious. If I'm thinking about an Italy vacation i might be willing to pay a dime or a quarter to read the Italy article in Conde Nast Traveler. But I don't want to be on the hook for an annual subscription. And I have no interest in the articles on Las Vegas, South America, China, or wherever. This year it's just Italy.
-> Instant online purchase and download means instant gratification. Perfect along with the whim purchase at a trivial impulse price. The ability to sample a song before buying, then a single click, and boom, you have it.

The magazine business has always been that way. It never was like the music business. You could always go to the newsstand and browse through the magazine. If you like it you can buy a single issue. You are not forced into buying the subscription. A per article price is not very practical. It is not equivalent to single song purchase you describe. You're say that comparatively it would be like only wanting to pay for the chorus of a song not the whole song.

The digital subscription should allow the same flexibility as the newsstand. You buy one issue at a time. I don't think they are billing you a year in advance like the printed copy. I think you sign up for subscriptions, download an issue then change your subscription preference to not subscribe. That way when the next issue comes out you can choose to buy it or not.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #30 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by TalkingNewMedia View Post

"I want an app that holds magazines."

And I want a television that holds radio stations . . . a car that holds my horse . . . a book that holds my tablets (stone tablets, that is).

If you want something to hold your magazines I would suggest you go to Pier One and buy a wicker basket.

And you, of course, miss the point.
Readers desire that, whatever the exact nature of the new media, it be easily usable (as well as reasonably priced.) An app for every magazine is not what they want. It doesn't fit into their lives. It's inconvenient to read and use. The quality is unacceptably low. In addition the price is disconnected from reality. As a result, few people are buying what the publishers are offering.

iBooks and the many other digital book offerings, on the other hand, work more how people want them too. The prices, not so good, but the usability, pretty good. More people have accepted e-books, but when the price adjusts to where the loss of not being able to loan or give the book to a friend is reflected, almost everyone will accept them. Magazines though, are nowhere near where books are. Too stupid.

Ignore users at your peril.
post #31 of 55
Yes. Pretty much right on, I'd say (even the parts I snipped out.)
The publishers don't yet get it. They will. Some of them not until after it's too late for them. Others though, will buy the slow ones up for pennies on the dollar, and create a fortune from the disruption.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davesmall View Post

Magazine and Newspaper publishers have wild and crazy ideas about pricing. They just don't get it. They really don't. They're trying to force an obsolete business model onto the Internet. It isn't going to work. Not now. Not ever. iPad or no iPad.

. . .

What Conde Nast traveler should do is work toward getting several million people to opt into a mailing list which involves a monthly email listing the new issue's table of contents along with a thumbnail description. Each major article should be priced at about 10 cents with a single click to buy (or make it free and ad supported). An issue that features Italy with multiple articles might be priced at 25 cents for the Italy bundle. A special deal might offer all of the Conde Nast articles on Italy going back five years collected together into a single download for maybe $2 (still an impulse buy).

Get 2 million readers paying 10 cents an article and clicking way. Match up the ads to their interests dynamically like Google's ad sense. If they buy the Italy bundle they get the Italy ads. Make it dirt cheap or even free. Get the high volume circulation and take that the data to advertisers.

There are some smart people in the publishing industry but they seem to be suffering from brain lockup disease when it comes to Internet marketing and pricing strategies. I suspect it's because they're fearful of their children eating the parents. They're afraid to put out an internet product that might kill off their traditional hard copy print business.

. . .
post #32 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

The magazine business has always been that way. It never was like the music business. You could always go to the newsstand and browse through the magazine. If you like it you can buy a single issue. You are not forced into buying the subscription. A per article price is not very practical. It is not equivalent to single song purchase you describe. You're say that comparatively it would be like only wanting to pay for the chorus of a song not the whole song.

The digital subscription should allow the same flexibility as the newsstand. You buy one issue at a time. I don't think they are billing you a year in advance like the printed copy. I think you sign up for subscriptions, download an issue then change your subscription preference to not subscribe. That way when the next issue comes out you can choose to buy it or not.

Sorry but I strongly disagree. It's the single issue that is comparable to the CD, not the subscription. The point is that most readers have no interest in many, perhaps most, of the articles in any single issue. Put it this way. If I have to buy a subscription Conde Nast won't get my business. And if I have to buy an entire issue they won't get my business. Wired has some great articles from time to time but most of it is a waste. I'd pay a dime for an article I'm interested in but never a dollar for an entire issue.
post #33 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by DamonF View Post

Conde's offerings are still without subscriptions. This means:

1. You pay newsstand price for each issue.
2. You have to buy each issue separately. With a subscription you would get a new issue automatically, no re-entering your Apple ID password every time to buy.

Conde: Maybe you can get away with selling individual issues at newsstand prices on Madison Avenue in New York City, but the majority of mainstream America isn't going to pay $47.88 ($3.99 x 12) a year for your magazines.

Well said. This is my issue. I would love a subscription-based model. I even wrote them an email asking them about it. I like Wired a lot, and currently subscribe to the magazine. I asked if I could switch over to an electronic subscription (get the app monthly or w/e, and not the printed version) but they said they didn't offer it. No way am I going to pay $4 for an issue if I already get it in the mail anyway. Really hope they improve the pricing model, as it would be nice to have.
post #34 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

The magazine business has always been that way. It never was like the music business. You could always go to the newsstand and browse through the magazine. If you like it you can buy a single issue. You are not forced into buying the subscription. A per article price is not very practical. It is not equivalent to single song purchase you describe. You're say that comparatively it would be like only wanting to pay for the chorus of a song not the whole song.

The digital subscription should allow the same flexibility as the newsstand. You buy one issue at a time. I don't think they are billing you a year in advance like the printed copy. I think you sign up for subscriptions, download an issue then change your subscription preference to not subscribe. That way when the next issue comes out you can choose to buy it or not.

The point is flexibility and reasonable prices. Dave's scenario is one possibility, and maybe not one everybody would buy into. But the successful scenario is one where prices are in line with expectations. The NYT would do better to offer subscriptions to individuals for $3/month or $20/ year than their present proposals. At $20/ year almost everyone in the US would get a subscription. Everyone else could pay ten cents per article.
post #35 of 55
Magazines are all published electronically by their nature now. It isn't that hard to export it to a simple PDF file. Unless you think we really need all those interactive features. GIve us the digital version for the same price as the paper version. If anything, an e-magazine SHOULD cost less than a paper-based publication, as there are little if any material costs! I read the NYtimes, but only on certain days, and would love to be able to buy a digital version just on my days.
post #36 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

That's what I agree with. I don't need an app that's a magazine. I want an app that holds magazines.

My current problem is that the publishers are simply charging way to much. We are talking a little bit but way to much.

As to an app that holds magazines that would be an excellent approach. It works out especially well for magazines you hold onto. It would however not keep me from buying some magazines as app as some are throw aways anyway.

In any event I think both Apple and then publishers are completely missing the boat here. There is nothing about iPad that compels me to buy list price magazines. Rather the expectation is just the opposite, I expect a discount over the subscription prices. Just because I have disposable income for iPad does not mean I'm fast with my money.

As to Conde Nast specifically I have to wonder how many Apple users, that is well educated people even bother with the crap Conde sells? I don't remember recently purchasing any of their publications.
post #37 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by davesmall View Post

Sorry but I strongly disagree. It's the single issue that is comparable to the CD, not the subscription. The point is that most readers have no interest in many, perhaps most, of the articles in any single issue. Put it this way. If I have to buy a subscription Conde Nast won't get my business. And if I have to buy an entire issue they won't get my business. Wired has some great articles from time to time but most of it is a waste. I'd pay a dime for an article I'm interested in but never a dollar for an entire issue.

I am not sure that the avid newspaper readers would be of the same perspective as you claim. The avid newspaper reader, even those online, is a voracious reader, one who is prone to explore and discover. The essence of discovery and exploration depends not so much on the headline or the lead paragraph, but in the perusal of the details of the content. The publisher will not provide you with the latter option, using the model that you prefer.

A more modest subscription rate would be much preferred by such avid readers and also by the the publishers. It would be also more affordable and more convenient for both parties - the reader and the publisher, and also Apple. For the publisher, subscription encourages loyalty, and subsequent subscriptions.

Imagine the cost and the "paperwork" burden of your proposal for a newsreader who may want to read 100 or more articles a day. Papers, like the New York Times are likely to have more than several hundreds of "current contents".

The same holds true why some people would want to have subscription music or movie, or package cable network subscriptions, a la carte or otherwise.

Netflix is an example of a successful subscription model, even if they may offer "pay per view" for other customers. It also worked for Wall Street Journal. New York Times had more than 100,000 initial paid subscribers for the first month, even at the high price it is charging; but NYT would need millions of subscribers, just to breakeven, because of its high debt exposure.

Apple Ecosystems
post #38 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by davesmall View Post

... Magazine and Newspaper publishers have wild and crazy ideas about pricing. They just don't get it. They really don't. They're trying to force an obsolete business model onto the Internet. It isn't going to work. Not now. Not ever. iPad or no iPad.

If I'm thinking about an Italy vacation i might be willing to pay a dime or a quarter to read the Italy article in Conde Nast Traveler. But I don't want to be on the hook for an annual subscription. And I have no interest in the articles on Las Vegas, South America, China, or wherever. This year it's just Italy. ...

This is such a terrible idea, it's hard to believe it was actually done! This is basically the brilliant idea the newspaper industry went with, give away your content for the dime that the ad on the sidebar pays. Now, all but 5 newspapers in the country are losing money and going bankrupt. Giving it away for free is the obsolete business model.

And if your only interested in going to Italy, then do a Google search and read all the marketing materials you can for free. You are not the target market. You are never going to subscribe to a travel magazine. You are not worth the 70% of the dime you would be so generously willing to give for one article. A travel magazine is for the person who may not know where they are going next year, it could be South America, China or where ever! For that reader, there is value in the content of a magazine that writes meaningful articles about destinations around the world.
post #39 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

And you, of course, miss the point.
Readers desire that, whatever the exact nature of the new media, it be easily usable (as well as reasonably priced.) An app for every magazine is not what they want. It doesn't fit into their lives. It's inconvenient to read and use. The quality is unacceptably low. In addition the price is disconnected from reality. As a result, few people are buying what the publishers are offering.

An app for every magazine is not what they want. It doesn't fit into their lives. It's inconvenient to read and use.
Good luck finding research to back up this claim. Besides, how is an individual app more inconvenient than an individual print magazine?

In addition the price is disconnected from reality.
Prices are set by the publishers. You can find examples where the iPad pricing is lower than either the print newsstand or the digital newsstand. For instance, a four-week in-app subscription to Bloomberg Businessweek costs $2.99 in the branded iPad app. The same four weeks would cost you $19.96 through Zinio, the same as the print editions. So, you see, pricing is entirely up to the publisher, there is nothing that forces Condé Nast or Hearst to price their iPad editions at newsstand prices.

It's inconvenient to read and use. The quality is unacceptably low.
I don't see how a replica edition that forces the reader to use pinch to zoom is more convenient than a native app that puts the magazine into tablet layouts. A digital newsstand issue can only be read in portrait, using landscape requires zooming in every time you what to read something.

As a result, few people are buying what the publishers are offering.
This is just as true for print as it is native apps. Wired, for instance, is struggling in print with only a circulation of 700,000. The fact that over 100,000 iPad owners downloaded the first Wired app had far more to do with curiosity than it did a desire to become a regular Wired reader. You have to remember that Apple has only sold around 16-20 million iPads worldwide, that represents a very small percentage of the entire reading public. Even if 50 million people or more own iPads by the end of 2011 this would still only represent a small percentage of all print readers worldwide – but it would be a much healthier market to sell into than what we have today.
post #40 of 55
Dear Conde,

I paid $10 for a print subscription to Wired and you threw in a free tee shirt. Wouldn't you be better off charging me the same rate for an electronic subscription. Heck, I'll be a little generous, since you have to pay Apple 30%. Make it $12 per year. For $48 a year, I'm not even remotely interested.

By the way, your digital copies weigh in at about 350 MB each. A year's subscription would use up over 4 GB of my iPad's memory. You really should give that some thought.

Fondly,

A Longtime Subscriber
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Soft sales prompt Conde Nast to slow addition of magazines to Apple's iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Soft sales prompt Conde Nast to slow addition of magazines to Apple's iPad