Rolling Stone co-founder slams publishers for embracing Apple's iPad - Page 3

Huh? iPads and tablets don't save trees? That make as much sense as skiing at Mamoth in July is caused by Global Warming!

There's a huge advantage for a music magazine to be on the same device that has your music collection and you could hear a preview of the music Rolling Stone is reviewing... Oh I get it, that would be a problem.

Forbes posted this reply to Wenner's statements.

http://blogs.forbes.com/jeffbercovic...about-tablets/

Android people don't buy anything. That's been proven over and over again. Magazines on the Ipad are a fail. They should just sell their shit through the ibooks store. People don't need a website written in iOS. That's a fail. In reality they should be doing the HTML 5 thing. One app that hits both Android and Ipad and will work on the traditional web as well.

The real enemy is The Web. I don't remember the last time I looked at Rolling Stone or any other print magazine.

Yes but were those 16k replacement subscriptions (ie they dropped the print for the digital) or 16k added ones (folks have both or folks that didn't want to pay for print were willing to pay for digital)

and just what are the subscription fees, the costs, the ad revenue etc. This guy is pushing a lot of talk with no real evidence to back up his rhetoric

Jann is a he, unless you are referring to the fact that he's gay.

Exactly!
I usually get wired for about $12/year. I expect to pay no more than that for the digital version (which I can't share with anyone!) And then there's the fact that many of the e-versions are essentially abridged versions. The publishers are simply afraid to make the leap and make a viable offering. When they do, customers will bite.

[And BTW, far from what Wenner thinks, the transition to digital is well under way, just not the way he thinks. Although I tend to prefer physical media for cost reasons, my 78 year old Mom has already made the leap. She has a Kindle does almost all of her reading on it. She loves it because it is so light and she can adjust the print to a larger size. The is the compelling value of the product for her. When the publishers provide all of us with such a compelling value offer, we'll all take the leap.]

I spent many years in magazine publishing and what people don't know is, mag distributors take about 50% of the cover price. The magazine still eats the cost of printing, paper, staff, etc.etc. So, to produce a digital issues is far more cost effective. ROLLING STONE is obviously trying to cut costs due to subscriptions losses and newsstand losses. They trimmed the size down to a much smaller format to save costs. I don't understand why a company that used to be so cutting edge wouldn't embrace a new platform to sell issues?

Doesn't really matter which way you slice it. 16k is pretty shitty number, if it is to be believed.

Apple hosts the origonal app download.

Who hosts the 'in app' purchased data?

The other thing everyone seems to forget is that no more than 1 or 2% of current subscribers [buyers] even own an iPad. Popular Science's 16k digital subscriptions[purchases]/month is probably more comparable to 800k+ subscriptions[issues]/month when you consider that.

This may have already been mentioned, and it's just a technical detail, but...

Popular Science has a *circulation* of about 1.2 million, not a subscription level of that. Circulation includes *unpaid* copies and tons of those copies on the newstands that never sell - and get thrown away.

A: Apple

Have a look at what he linked to: an article that says

1: digital revenue is in the majority for Forbes, but
2: advertising is the principal revenue stream
3: Forbes have stepped back from putting an app on the various app stores.

hardly a resounding argument for getting magazine apps in the app store.

There's a good argument for getting content onto tablets, but an app might not be the best way to do it

not according to the app producers

I like to hold a book or magazine as much as the next guy, but slowly and surely they are ARE going away. Just ask where your nearest Borders went, or how long it will take Barnes & Noble to find their "strategic alternative." Most of the "mom & pop" operations are already long gone.

A number of colleges and universities are converting to iPad for not only textbooks but student work.

Need to get some figures into perspective. Total world market?. Printed magazines and books? Total subscribers (purchasers)?

iPad (and eBook readers sold) 100 million? 200 million? Digital editions available worldwide? Total subscribers (purchasers)?

It's going to be a while before the subscribers (buyers) of digital editions equal the percentage of subscribers (buyers) of hard copies but I for one have gone all digital and cancelled all subscriptions to magazines and have stopped buying printed books.

Everything I want (and can get) is installed on my Mac and transferred to iPad or iPhone as and when needed -- I have at least 30 books/mags installed on the iPad at any given time. Printed material would probably fill a medium sized suitcase.

Well, I don't speak from personal experience, but from everything I've read, Apple now handles, takes 30%, and controls access to user data on all iApp transactions. Anything else would not make any sense.
What happens on a web browser is a different thing though, so publishers who think they can do better can cut Apple out with a web magazine subscription, if they think it's a better deal.

It depends on what is meant by that word. Distribution is all of the copies sent out, for whatever reason.

Circulation is copies sent out to an end user. It doesn't include returned copies.

Certified circulation numbers are those that go out to someone who is listed as an actual receiver of the copy, as in subscription holders.

Yes, I read it. Of course, digital also means web. I'm on their mailing list, and receive a number of mailings throughout the day. Those mailings of articles include Ads. That's their income.

When you buy a magazine/book in a brick/mortar store, the store is taking a larger than 30% cut of that sale. Do you see this as being significantly different?

I can understand that some of the magazines such as Rolling Stone can be pissed because Apple is taking 30%. Really? Is he serious? Well I don't know where he is getting his numbers from, but if Apple were to add a "Magazine" section in the app store I would use it in a heartbeat.

I for one love reading magazines and newspapers like USA Today on my iPad 2. If the publications are done correctly and easy to use, navigate, etc. I will pay for an electronic subscription first before ever get one in print, and not just because of it would save some trees. To be honest I think Rolling Stone co-founder is living in the past and needs to embrace the future.

Unsold issues do not count as part of the circulation (since they are not circulated.)
Retailers are reimbursed for those (or used to be) as long as they tear off and retain the front cover of unsold stock and return it to the distributor.

Same here, any publication that is not on board and is print only is Not getting my money.

It would seem, based on the numbers bandied about in the OP, that people like you are in the minority.

This whole mess is probably the magazine publishers own doing. They devalue their content by selling print subs for next to nothing, then along comes a medium which can only devalue it more. Sure, the potential audience in the digital is more vast, but they (or someone) has set the expectation that there is little or no value in the content itself. At least not the extent that a consumer is willing to pay for it.

The answer is ads, and this, it seems, has been the answer in print as well. If they can't drive ROI on one side, they have to on the other.

But how do you get people to accept low cost, ad driven content?

The overriding view I see on my travels around the web is that payment and ads are considered mutually exclusive. I guess ironically, these people would probably think nothing of an embroidered horse on their polo shirt which consumes a whool spool of cotton.

Frankly, when I started reading the article, I was all set to be one of those to send Wenner, while not a "hate mail" letter, but at least some kind of typical Apple Fanboi response.

Then I continued to read and eventually thought, "By Golly, Wenner still has his brilliance of old and makes some pretty good points."

Now I'm thinking of lettering him with words of encouragement for taking the position he did, and for explaining his position so eloquently and persuasively.

PS to @Whozown: Jann Wenner is a man.

Where in Europe are you? Ten years ago, last time I was over, I saw many trees throughout Germany, Austria and CH, and the Czech Republic. After Nokia, timber is Finland's greatest resource. Sweden is choking in trees.

I've been reading this thread off and on all day and no one has said a couple of obvious things AFAICS, so here's my two cents.

1) Paper magazine distributors take more than the 30% Apple takes

2) Magazines are mostly crap that have been artificially supported by, and had their content subverted by, Advertising dollars for many years now.

3) Magazines are vastly overpriced for what they are and what you get, so previous to digital, all the producers were raking in mega-bucks for basically nothing.

4) People don't want to pay the same (or more) for digital copies than they do for paper.

The whole problem with magazines not selling in the app store is due to the fact that they are generally crap and for the most part, and an expensive "bad deal." This guy is blaming Apple for pulling the curtain off all the shady crap in the magazine business, when in fact, they should just be changing their evil ways.

A good digital magazine at a good price will make more money up on volume than it loses at the current ridiculous price points available. Good, interesting content, reasonably priced will always sell like gangbusters.

I mean "Rolling Stone" for cripes sake? They haven't been relevant since the late 70's. Is it really a mystery that they can't get anyone young or hip enough to have an iPad to buy Rolling Stone? I don't think so.

Why should we be skeptical? Not that I expected a different response from you, but it was the magazine guys making the statements, not some vague comments made by some unidentified industry sources.

Quote: “. . .said Gregg Michaelson, president and chief marketing officer of Rodale, which publishes a number of magazines on the Nook Color. “When we look at the numbers across our titles we’re seeing about five times the number of paid subscriptions on the Nook than we see in single-issue sales on the iPad”

and this:
"But since November (2010), the company (B&N) said more than 1.5 million magazine subscriptions and copies of single issues had been sold on the Nook Color."

and this:
"Meredith publishes two magazines, Family Circle and More, on the Nook Color and has plans to add more because the sales have been strong. Nook Color subscriptions are outselling the magazines Meredith publishes on the iPad, where only single-issue sales are available, by about 2 to 1."

and this:
"Hearst, which publishes O and Cosmopolitan, is selling tens of thousands of subscriptions on the device each month."

Considering that B&N has probably sold far fewer than a third as many NookColor's as Apple has iPad's, ( http://www.crunchgear.com/2011/03/29...ks-color-sold/ ) the results from the two articles I linked surely supports the argument that the Nook so far makes a better platform for the magazine publishers, delivering more results per unit sold if we go by these reports.

Goldman Sachs estimates that Barnes & Noble "now has a 27% share of the e-book market, to Amazon's 58% and Apple's 9%" and goes on to say that "The Nook has 22% of the e-reader market, compared with the Kindle's 67%. According to the report, the Nook color e-reader, introduced in October, generated 64% of the company's hardware sales in the most recent quarter".
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...FREE/110219913

Perhaps you have sources that refute what's stated in these articles, thus your skepticism?

In any case, B&N's reported early successes with magazine subscriptions is in stark contrast to the views stated in the AI article concerning iPad subscriptions. I think if magazine/newspaper subscriptions are done properly, marketed to the correct audiences, and at realistic prices, there's a significant and profitable market for e-versions.

So far B&N has been better at that than Apple going by the evidence presented.

As such, I'll disagree with Rolling Stones editor. They just haven't figured out how to get to their audience yet. That doesn't mean there isn't one, and that it can't be profitable.

I think you mean that books used to meant to be permanent.

I have books that are less than five years old whose spines are broken, whose pages are browning, whose graphics are turning sepia. And these are newly-published hardbound books.

OTOH I have some 50-year-old books that look newer than the new ones, and I'm grateful for that.

Frankly, when I started reading the article... I stopped at "decades"...

Jann is now an old guy with wishful thinking imo... and this has nothing to do with Apple... Apple is just one company offering a new print medium... there are others.

... and Jann doesn't take into account the new way that people digest the written word. It's no longer that they sit down as if to eat a leisurely 3 course dinner... now it's fast food... grab a snippet there, search for material here.

... and who the hell wants to wait a month or even a week to see updates on the material you read in the last issue.

I see it like I see my former profession as a photographer. Film, negatives, darkrooms... all things of the past except for the few who savour it as a symbol of quality from days gone by.

imo this won't take decades. Something will come along in the next 5 years that will really tip the balance for the digital magazine... not sure what but the iPad, the Nook, and the kindle, in the last few years, have given a good start, a toehold, a vision, on the future of the magazine industry.

Thank you! I totally agree with you on this, you nailed it right on the head.

You don't go visit the dentist?

That, of course, ignores the entire cost picture.

Let's say a magazine has an annual subscription rate of $15. If you have the same price on the iPad, Apple keeps $4.50 and the publisher keeps $10.50.

Now, if they sell the print subscription for $15, they have to physically print 12 magazines (if it's monthly) as well as mail 12 magazines. In addition, some percentage let lost or damaged in the mail and are routinely replaced.

Do you think that printing and mailing a dozen magazines is less than 30% of the retail price? If so, you're dreaming. Most reports are that printing and mailing costs are close to 100% of the retail price - and the publisher's profit comes from advertising alone. The e-version allows them to have a 70% gross margin.

My dentist and my doctor no longer have magazines... apparently they pass too many germs around. It's a different world.

Hey Hermit, no sarcasm intended when I say I fully sympathize with the above. I was never a pro but did spend a lot of time doing my own B&W stuff in a little closet in my garage. Had a lot of fun with that old (and, for me, very expensive) Beseler enlarger back in the day.

If the NookColor has less than a third of the iPad user base, and more than 1.5 million magazine subscriptions and copies of single issues had been sold on the Nook Color. the percentage of subscribers must be damn high, like 120% maybe?

They're probably quoting figures for total subscriptions for ALL digital media.

Or else this:


is just a whole load of cow dung or the 1.5 million figure is distorted.

And that's why I think a syndicate agency model is what's going to work for magazines as well.

Time will come when people don't want an entire magazine of what the editors thought you should read this weak or month. People will want articles that THEY want to read, and ONLY those articles.

A good example is TRVL for the iPad.

Is that a fact?

When you are downloading music, software, books, magazines, they are not located on Apple servers?

I would tend to agree that publishers want sales data. They always had access to that but nothing says that cant be worked out in the user agreement when you purchase a subscription.

My wife has at least three of those 1.5 million.

Altho putting Cosmopolitan and Family Circle on the same page just seems wrong.

BTW, why would 3 million Nook color owners buying 1.5 million magazines/subscriptions be any issue for you? That's only one of every two owners.