Originally Posted by melgross
Interesting, but as they stated, magazine subs on the iPad have only just started. And all we're getting is estimates for Nook sales, and subs, no actual numbers, so we should be just a bit skeptical. These articles tend to be a bit self serving.
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”
"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.
"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.
"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.